HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Regarding the meteor cras...

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:59 PM

Regarding the meteor crash in Russia...

What could be more rare than a meteor crashing?

Yet...

There are videos taken by lots of people, very clear and convincing NON-faked ones.

So...

Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?

Easy answer: Flying saucers are bullshit.

191 replies, 12984 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 191 replies Author Time Post
Reply Regarding the meteor crash in Russia... (Original post)
Archae Feb 2013 OP
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 #1
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #57
Lint Head Feb 2013 #2
eppur_se_muova Feb 2013 #135
Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #3
Agschmid Feb 2013 #33
rgbecker Feb 2013 #4
doc03 Feb 2013 #87
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #5
Octafish Feb 2013 #6
SidDithers Feb 2013 #7
Octafish Feb 2013 #9
SidDithers Feb 2013 #10
Octafish Feb 2013 #14
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #34
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #39
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2013 #45
OriginalGeek Feb 2013 #61
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2013 #75
alphafemale Feb 2013 #56
backwoodsbob Feb 2013 #59
TrogL Feb 2013 #70
BlueJazz Feb 2013 #77
SidDithers Feb 2013 #84
countryjake Feb 2013 #113
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #97
stevenleser Feb 2013 #107
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #168
stevenleser Feb 2013 #171
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #172
TrogL Feb 2013 #109
zappaman Feb 2013 #155
Trajan Feb 2013 #31
TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #66
freshwest Feb 2013 #68
truth2power Feb 2013 #169
PCIntern Feb 2013 #12
SidDithers Feb 2013 #15
PCIntern Feb 2013 #19
Octafish Feb 2013 #16
SidDithers Feb 2013 #18
Octafish Feb 2013 #20
SidDithers Feb 2013 #23
Octafish Feb 2013 #27
SidDithers Feb 2013 #29
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #46
SidDithers Feb 2013 #49
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #50
SidDithers Feb 2013 #52
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #54
SidDithers Feb 2013 #55
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #60
SidDithers Feb 2013 #82
UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 #98
SidDithers Feb 2013 #115
Octafish Feb 2013 #63
SidDithers Feb 2013 #124
Octafish Feb 2013 #128
thucythucy Feb 2013 #78
Trajan Feb 2013 #127
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #22
SidDithers Feb 2013 #24
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #32
PCIntern Feb 2013 #48
SidDithers Feb 2013 #51
Kalidurga Feb 2013 #62
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #21
SidDithers Feb 2013 #25
Octafish Feb 2013 #28
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #30
SidDithers Feb 2013 #37
Flying Dream Blues Feb 2013 #94
SidDithers Feb 2013 #95
Octafish Feb 2013 #117
SidDithers Feb 2013 #119
Octafish Feb 2013 #121
zappaman Feb 2013 #133
Octafish Feb 2013 #134
SidDithers Feb 2013 #138
zappaman Feb 2013 #142
Octafish Feb 2013 #159
Octafish Feb 2013 #180
zappaman Feb 2013 #183
Octafish Feb 2013 #187
SidDithers Feb 2013 #136
zappaman Feb 2013 #144
Octafish Feb 2013 #156
Octafish Feb 2013 #164
Raksha Feb 2013 #170
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #38
Octafish Feb 2013 #179
David Zephyr Feb 2013 #176
Octafish Feb 2013 #178
zappaman Feb 2013 #184
Octafish Feb 2013 #188
Comatose Sphagetti Feb 2013 #26
Trajan Feb 2013 #35
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #42
Trajan Feb 2013 #80
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #81
Trajan Feb 2013 #91
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #96
Trajan Feb 2013 #104
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #108
Trajan Feb 2013 #110
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #114
Trajan Feb 2013 #123
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #125
Octafish Feb 2013 #143
Drew Richards Feb 2013 #99
Trajan Feb 2013 #101
treestar Feb 2013 #74
David Zephyr Feb 2013 #175
SidDithers Feb 2013 #40
Octafish Feb 2013 #44
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #73
Octafish Feb 2013 #100
Logical Feb 2013 #105
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #112
Logical Feb 2013 #130
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #132
Logical Feb 2013 #141
Logical Feb 2013 #103
Octafish Feb 2013 #116
Logical Feb 2013 #129
Octafish Feb 2013 #131
Logical Feb 2013 #146
Octafish Feb 2013 #163
zappaman Feb 2013 #165
Logical Feb 2013 #166
Logical Feb 2013 #167
Logical Feb 2013 #148
zappaman Feb 2013 #149
Logical Feb 2013 #151
zappaman Feb 2013 #154
Logical Feb 2013 #158
Octafish Feb 2013 #181
zappaman Feb 2013 #185
Octafish Feb 2013 #186
Logical Feb 2013 #189
jpak Feb 2013 #174
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #8
HappyMe Feb 2013 #11
SidDithers Feb 2013 #41
zappaman Feb 2013 #71
SidDithers Feb 2013 #72
zbdent Feb 2013 #13
cliffordu Feb 2013 #69
HipChick Feb 2013 #17
joeunderdog Feb 2013 #182
NightOwwl Feb 2013 #36
Amonester Feb 2013 #47
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #43
MFM008 Feb 2013 #53
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #58
Archae Feb 2013 #64
AntiFascist Feb 2013 #67
zappaman Feb 2013 #65
AsahinaKimi Feb 2013 #76
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #79
nessa Feb 2013 #90
Logical Feb 2013 #102
Amonester Feb 2013 #106
otherone Feb 2013 #173
Deep13 Feb 2013 #83
Hosnon Feb 2013 #85
Robb Feb 2013 #86
Rex Feb 2013 #93
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #88
Silent3 Feb 2013 #89
Octafish Feb 2013 #120
Silent3 Feb 2013 #122
Octafish Feb 2013 #137
Silent3 Feb 2013 #139
Logical Feb 2013 #150
Rex Feb 2013 #92
Coyotl Feb 2013 #111
eShirl Feb 2013 #118
Siwsan Feb 2013 #126
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #140
spanone Feb 2013 #145
Separation Feb 2013 #147
indepat Feb 2013 #152
underpants Feb 2013 #153
ZX86 Feb 2013 #157
ThoughtCriminal Feb 2013 #160
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #161
zappaman Feb 2013 #162
Logical Feb 2013 #191
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #177
SidDithers Feb 2013 #190

Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:03 PM

1. Or maybe their cloaking mechanisms don't show up on video

 

You know like how you can see a vampire but they don't reflect in a mirror?

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:04 PM

57. +1000 -- now that is a logical explanation

damn, some people have no critical faculties whatsoever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:03 PM

2. Here's proof. A real photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:51 PM

135. I don't think those flew very far.

Or maybe the "F" stands for somethinig else ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:04 PM

3. Several answers

1) meteors are not rare
2) there are plenty of videos/photos of "UFOs"
3) meteors don't have stealth capability, nor the ability to knock out electronic signals, unlike UFOs (do I have to add the sarcasm tag to this one?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:28 PM

33. Yes you do! Haha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:06 PM

4. What makes you so sure that wasn't a UFO in a bad miscalculation?

I suppose you've seen the wreckage. How different was this than the pictures of the Columbia?

Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:02 PM

87. It being a UFO would explain why nobody saw it coming n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:07 PM

5. If they do people just say it is swamp gas anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:13 PM

6. Like the time Rex Heflin was on the job inspecting highway signs in 1965 with his Polaroid?



Heflin never said he took a picture of an alien craft, just that he saw something he could not explain nearby. In addition to the photos, his radio conked out when the object was nearby, then worked OK again after it departed.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case253.htm

As for what it was, or UFOs represent: Who knows? Rather than ridicule people for seeing something that doesn't fit in with one's belief system, I prefer to encourage them to come forward with their reports, photos and films. That way we might learn something new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:15 PM

7. Oh, octafish. You're a Ufologist too?...

Really?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:23 PM

9. Oh, siddithers, you debunk UFOs, too?

You never cease. Not to amaze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:26 PM

10. Here you go. Just for you...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:39 PM

14. Well, if Mr. Heflin had thrown a Frisbee into the air, it would need to be about 30-feet across.

Then, he'd have had to have shot a lot of photos to make it appear to be at the same altitude. And then a bunch more photos to make it appear in the same orientation. Otherwise the series of images would look like your poster.

Here's a better image of Mr. Heflin's first photo:



Note the dust on the ground directly underneath the object is standing straight up. Of course, if we listen just to debunkers, that's hard evidence for some type of unknown phenomenon we wouldn't know about.

Those interested in learning more about this particular case, might want to read Ann Druffel's report in PDF format:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

I don't know what the thing is or represents. I do know it is an amazing universe and I encourage others to learn about it and all its phenomena, even that which is odd or alien or doesn't fit in with my own perspectives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:33 PM

34. There are none so blind…

Ya hadda know this was gonna happen, Octa.

I sometimes wonder at the categorical rigidity one sometimes finds on the left. Weltanschauung über Alles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:47 PM

39. I find it odd that often those that express faith in an almighty have such a hard time believing

in things that might be explained via science. Maybe odd isnt the correct word. On third thought, it is the perfect word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:16 PM

45. It looks like a hat

maybe it is a remote controlled object from Earth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:08 PM

61. I thought looked like a straw hat like Barbershop Quartets wear

It would be nice to be invaded by Barbershop Quartets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #61)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:09 PM

75. Looks like someone threw it into the air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:03 PM

56. And so amazing that they designed their ships to meet earth sci fi imaginations.

Ridiculous, unaerodynamic design it may be.


And it casts no shadows. That PROVES it is real. ///sarcasm///



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:07 PM

59. what standing dust

I see a line where nothing is growing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:21 PM

70. Anyone who understands depth of field...

...can see that the object is at best 30 feet away from the camera, likely closer. The photo was shot with a fairly high shutter speed, stopping the motion, but as a result requiring the aperature to be open, causing depth of field blurring. The first telephone pole is in focus, the 2nd one is already starting to get blurry. The same can be seen of the grass.

If the object is that close, that makes it somewhere between the size of the pie plate and a hubcab.

I've worked a lot with radio. It's not unusual for them to cut in and out based upon a whole lot of factors.

Most UFO stories are a compendium of "unidivided middle" logical fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:51 PM

77. When I first saw the photo a few years ago, I also noticed the dust (or whatever) under the saucer.

It reminded me SO much of one of the things we would do on the 4th of July...when I was about 13.

Get a stainless steel salad bowl, a cherry bomb...light the cherry, put the bowl over it and watch the bowl go up about 60 feet in the air....laugh like hell and do it again.

That would explain the dust. ????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:44 PM

84. The link I posted below shows 2 of the photos in a stereogram...

http://badufos.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rex-heflin-1965-classic-ufo-photo-now.html

However only in 2006 did a still-anonymous person, using the alias Enkidu, make an extremely important finding. In a discussion thread on the conspiracy-oriented website AboveTop Secret, Enkidu argues that Heflin unintentionally created a 3-D photo of his UFO. Assuming that the UFO was attached in some way to the truck, by moving the camera a few inches between the exposures, Heflin has produced a near-perfect stereo pair, as can be seen in stereo viewers. The photos above are reversed by Enkidu to allow easier viewing of the 3-D effect without a stereo viewer by simply crossing one’s eyes. And when you do that, the UFO is seen to be tiny. It’s clearly farther away than the truck’s mirror, but much closer than the roadside vegetation, or the distant trees. Responding to criticism, Enkidu writes, “Yes, it's possible that the UFO moved between the time the first photo was taken and the second. But it would have to move exactly horizontal to the way the camera moved, because there's no apparent difference in the size of the top part of the ship. It could only tilt forward. It didn't go up or down, and it didn't get nearer or closer. The odds of that happening are pretty slim.” Great work, Enkidu!


Do the cross your eyes thing and it becomes pretty clear that the object isn't a large, far away one, but a small, close up one.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #84)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:34 AM

113. From a site that tells you to "cross your eyes"?

Didn't you listen to anything your mama ever told you?

They'll stay that way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:13 PM

97. I would normally be skeptical but in the seventies I saw one.

Pulled off the road to watch it. I have had an open mind about them since. Have no idea what it was I saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:21 AM

107. I would guess you saw experimental USAF craft. What did it look like? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #107)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:10 PM

168. I do not think so

or we would have much better technology than we do now. It hovered, it zig zagged and then shot off like a bullet and all with total silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #168)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:49 AM

171. Generally, what we see in terms of deployed aircraft are at least 10 years behind latest technology

The stealth fighter, F117A shown here below, was flying for almost 10 years before it was acknowledged. The flights were mostly at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #171)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:28 PM

172. It may have been some sort of prototype

but this was in the 70's and I have not seen anything like it so far. I really have no idea what it was.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #97)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:26 AM

109. So have I, and it sure as hell didn't look like that

It was bloody big, at a high altitude and flew like things couldn't fly at the time.

A whole bunch of cars pulled over to the side of the road to watch it.

Somewhere near Woodstock, Ontario sometime in the late 1960's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:10 PM

155. It's a toy train wheel.

You are welocme, my friend.
Happy to help you learn something new.


Heflin's oddness and the persistent theme of trains and "toy wheels" resonated with me. And apparently it has with other researchers. In 2006, researcher John Scheldroup reported in the UFO Updates forum that his photo enhancement and diagramming found that "a wheel of a model steam locomotive" had accounted for the Heflin "spaceship." He noted that "you can just make out the wheel hub protruding of the face of the wheel." UFO enthusiast Kyle King had done a similar match-up using various older toy train wheels and superimposing them onto the Heflin UFO image, producing highly suggestive matches.

Still others have come to similar conclusions. Another researcher indicated that he had conducted a graphic analysis of the Heflin photos. He had secured a "O" Gauge model toy train wheel from a set of 3-Rail Andrews Trucks (Item #6033) by manufacturer Atlas O. He then digitally compared this toy train wheel with the Heflin "UFO" image using a Photoshop ImageReady animated gif program. He created a digital overlay comparison of the wheel unto the UFO image. It is not claimed that this is the very wheel Heflin had used, but it is highly persuasive that a toy wheel was just what the "UFO" was. The analyst adjusted the brightness and contrast and then applied a film grain filter for matching the two images. He indicates that he did not stretch or shrink the relative proportions of the "UFO" image to the train wheel image. Here are the striking results:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/10/ufos-that-never-were-classic-photos-now.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

31. LMFAO ....

Flying Spaghetti Monster behind the wheel in that too ?

THAT's how he gets around .... FLYING SAUCER !!!!

Thanks for the laugh ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:13 PM

66. IIRC, several "credible" UFO photos were in fact...

 

...demonstrated to be of Frisbee brand pie plates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:16 PM

68. Love the pink, but you're so behind on the meme, Sid:



Default meme: It's All Obama's Fault!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:45 PM

169. Check your inbox, Octa....

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

-- Hamlet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:38 PM

12. You know, people like Octafish are

often proven correct later and many of those people who smirked and laughed at them and belittled them, those who are finally subjected to absolute proof that they were incorrect, start saying things like, "Who would have believed...? Who'da thunk that...?" Witness the lack of WMD's in Iraq: millions of people protested and stated that there was absolutely no evidence of same and the media disregarded all of the logical arguments and went with Condi and Co. and then, after there weren't any, they said collectively, "Almost unbelievably, there are no WMD's in Iraq." And those of us who wrote letters and e-mails and exclaimed, "But we protested in the streets and demanded to see evidence which did not exist!", the Media, again collectively, said, "Look at that shiny object over there..."

If you don't like the analogy, and think it is specious, here's another one: man will never be able to fly. Or another: no one will ever be able to run a four-minute mile. Or another: The Earth is flat. Or even another: The Earth is the Center of the Universe.

Virtually everyone knew that all of those statements were "true". Everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:52 PM

15. And as Carl Sagan said...

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:12 PM

19. I don't get what you-all 'get' out of 'debunking' this kind of thinking...

seems like a slightly offbeat kind of joy..

Fact of the matter is, that none of us are in any position to rule out distinct possibilities, and if someone presents evidence, then it should be noted and considered as part of a whole. The individual should not be

And here's the fun part, Sid: those of us who believe really don't give a crap that others don't believe. Not in our hearts we don't. Have your "fun"...we shall have the last laugh, if not in this generation, in a generation to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:55 PM

16. Thank you, PCIntern. The subject has been ridiculed and is considered, by many, taboo.

Why that is may have to do with authority. Remember the panic Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" caused on Halloween during the Depression? Now we've got television to help us see (or not).

If the phenomenon represents something real and tangible -- as the photos, videos, radar-visual cases, physical traces, and eyewitness reports indicate -- the government would face the troubling task of explaining to the public that there may be powers which the government can not defend the nation.

One of the most frightening examples I know of:



The Kinross Air Force Base Incident (jet disappears while chasing UFO)

Date: November 23, 1953
Location: Lake Superior, Michigan, United States

On the evening of 23 November 1953, an Air Force radar controller became alerted to an "unidentified target" over Lake Superior, and an F-89C Scorpion jet was scrambled from Kinross AFB. Radar controllers watched as the F-89 closed in on the UFO, and then sat stunned in amazement as the two blips merged on the screen, and the UFO left. The F-89 and it’s two man crew, pilot Felix Moncla and radar operator Robert Wilson, were never found, even after a thorough search of the area.

CONTINUED: http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case610.htm



This subject is, on the surface, incredible and shocking. I can understand why it would be dismissed out of hand by so many. In a way, it's easier to be an ostrich than a meerkat. Hiding from the facts, however, is a bad defense mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:06 PM

18. Dude, you're straying into Crazy Talk territory...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:14 PM

20. Keep trying to label me, siddithers.

In all the years you've tried to make something negative stick to me, you haven't.

Show me where I've intentionally lied or presented information that was not true on DU. You haven't because you can't.

Go through my Journal on DU3 or DU2.

Yet, you continue to call me crazy, Conspiracy Theorist, and whatever other labels you use to define me and what I have written. I don't think that's puzzling, I find it most revealing about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:19 PM

23. OK octafish, but it's only a small step from UFOs...

to alien abductions. I don't want to see you run afoul if the TOS. DU would be a much less entertaining place without you.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:22 PM

27. Who gives you authority to ban me, siddithers?

I don't like your implied threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

29. No threat at all, octafish. Truly a completely serious warning...

The TOS is pretty clear about Crazy Talk topics. Just ask SpiralHawk.

I've got no authority to do anything. I'd rather you didn't post something that crosses a line. Honestly.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #29)


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:45 PM

49. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:52 PM

50. You got

nothin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:57 PM

52. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:00 PM

54. This explains how you got to 25k+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:02 PM

55. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:08 PM

60. ...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:10 PM

82. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:34 PM

98. You're a Christian?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #98)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:41 AM

115. Nope. I have no idea where that comment came from...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:10 PM

63. ''Honestly.''



Rare document on the 1958 Trindade UFO case



A Brazilian Navy ship and a civilian photographer took these in 1958.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:25 PM

124. Another one bites the dust...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #124)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:43 PM

128. LOL. So a FRIEND of the photographer said it was a hoax?

From your link, siddithers:

In another twist of the story, a little more than a day after the TV show aired, Barauna’s niece, through Jose Americo Medeiros, states that she actually didn’t confirm the hoax. And while some are already suggesting the TV show concocted the whole thing, one has to take all these statements with due caution.


BTW: What about the Brazilian naval officers and crew who signed affidavits at the time? Were they all lying, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:59 PM

78. To be fair, Sid

Octafish is posting in response to an OP.

So, would/should Dennis Kucinich be prohibited from posting on DU? He did, after all, say he saw a UFO.

Personally, I highly doubt we've ever been "visited" by ETs. In fact, I'm almost certain it's never happened, and probably never will. But am I willing to stake my life on that proposition?

Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #78)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:39 PM

127. wrong thread


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:18 PM

22. And you're straying dangerously close to a violation of the DU TOS. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:20 PM

24. I think you replied to the wrong poster...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:28 PM

32. No, not at all. You are the correct poster to whom I'm responding. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:30 PM

48. I think you're out of line, Sid...

You working for someone in Wyoming, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:52 PM

51. I thought Roswell was in New Mexico...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:09 PM

62. Ah the Roswell aliens. They aren't in New Mexico, that's what they want you to think.

But, they aren't in Wyoming either, that's a red herring, like Roswell. They are in Maine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:17 PM

21. US astronauts have also discussed seeing UFOs...

UFO Sightings by Astronauts





Apollo Astronaut Chats About UFO, Alien Belief

No doubt they too would be ridiculed on this board.

For all of the distrust of the US Government expressed on this board, it's very interesting so many accept the Government's stance about the existence of UFOs.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:21 PM

25. They would be, and they should be...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:25 PM

28. How many astronauts have you met, siddithers?

Shaken any astronauts' hands?

Gotten to exchange words with one?

Corresponded with any astronauts?

How would you know they and their reports should be ridiculed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

30. Poof...there went any credibility you may have had on this or any other subject....

....just remember every time you post your "opinions" that we're laughing at you not with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:41 PM

37. Credibility with the "I'll believe anything" crowd is the least of my concerns...

I welcome their scorn.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:29 PM

94. Not that you care

But I am embarrassed for you. Scorn is too easy and much too compassionate for how I feel about someone whose entire being seems to be about ridiculing others for not following your lock step closed minded stance, and for being so vituperative on a board meant for discussion. What you do is so clearly meant to squelch any discussion. What's a shame is that those, like you, who were once confined to the dungeon, are now out and about spreading your poison.

If you truly believe in your "mission", I feel sorry for you. If you are paid to do what you do (and it's hard for me to understand why you might be doing this otherwise) I feel contempt for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flying Dream Blues (Reply #94)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:36 PM

95. You're right. I don't...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #95)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:10 AM

117. If that were true, why do you spend so much time on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #117)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:23 AM

119. I can't wait for you to tell us that Betty and Barney Hill were on the grassy knoll...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #119)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:37 AM

121. A lot of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #117)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:09 PM

133. "If that were true, why do you spend so much time on it?"

In other words, "why can't you let me bullshit in peace!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #133)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:46 PM

134. 'Trolling is a art.' - siddithers to zappaman.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2248867

"You better believe it." -- zappaman to siddithers

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022248209#post73

Thanks for reminding me. Where do you find the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #134)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:55 PM

138. Have you seriously never seen that meme before?...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #134)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:36 PM

142. '"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."-Octafish to DU

"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."-Octafish commenting on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672

Thanks for reminding me. When will you decide if Lee Harvey Oswald was a hero???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #142)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:41 PM

159. He wasn't convicted of anything - only accused by J Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles.

Both of whom obstructed justice in the investigation of President Kennedy's assassination.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #142)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:50 PM

180. I'll give you an answer just as soon as the CIA and FBI come clean with what they've covered up.

Some reading for those interested in learning more about the assassination of President Kennedy:

The CIA and the JFK Assassination

Destruction of the Oswald Note

That's for starters. Anyone interested in learning more, please ask.

Those interested in laughing about the assassination of President Kennedy, please don't. You are on the wrong forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #180)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:12 PM

183. "Those interested in laughing about the assassination of President Kennedy, please don't."

JFK assassination =
Your conspiracy "theories" =

By the way, I bet the Kennedy family doesn't believe Oswald was a hero.
And I bet almost all DUers don't think Oswald was a hero.

You have some mighty strange heroes, my friend!
Maybe it's you who is on the wrong board???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #183)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:26 PM

187. The Kennedy family believes a CONSPIRACY assassinated President Kennedy.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., and his sister, Rory Kennedy, told Charlie Rose that Jan. 11, 2013. That was the point of this thread:



Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

That's what his son and daughter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rory Kennedy, reported in an interview with Charlie Rose last weekend in Dallas.



It's also what author and Salon founder David Talbot reported, when he called Robert F. Kennedy the "first conspiracy theorist" in 2007.

Here's why the news from Robert and Rory is so important:

The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father -- the president's principal counselor and the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- privately thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately, which is vital when considering the Mafia were hired by Allen Dulles and the CIA during Eisenhower's administration to murder Fidel Castro -- an operation which the CIA failed to inform the president and attorney general.

The interview with Charlie Rose marked the first time members of the immediate Kennedy family have voiced the attorney general's doubts about the Warren Commission and its lone gunman theory.


Those are the facts we learned Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. It's called history.



If memory serves, your alert got me kicked off it, zappaman, so I can't reply there to your constant harangue.

Remember this: There is nothing funny about the assassination of President Kennedy. That you and other DUers continue to denigrate me for what I write about it is very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #133)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:53 PM

136. Check out my new site...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #136)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:38 PM

144. Hmmm...that kind of goes hand in hand with mine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #136)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:22 PM

156. Nothing to add, as usual.

So, why do you spend so much time monitoring my posts, siddithers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #136)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:52 PM

164. Make fun of me for going after the Bush Crime Family

Have you ever posted anything against the BFEE's many treasons and corruptions -- from helping finance and arm Hitler to financing and arming Saddam and then lying America into war with Iraq by father and son presidents -- siddithers?

If so, please post a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #136)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:04 AM

170. Your new site doesn't seem to exist.

I clicked on the link just for the hell of it and this is what I came up with:

"Sorry, We could not find www.knowyourbfeeufos.org

It may be unavailable or may not exist. Try using the suggestions or related links below, or search again using our web search."

I guess I could have tried Yahoo as the search engine suggested, but figured it would probably be a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:41 PM

38. What "meteor?" I stand with Thomas Jefferson. Rocks don't fall out of the sky.

After the supposed fall of a meteorite in Connecticut in 1808, Thomas Jefferson is widely quoted to have stated, "It is easier to believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:39 PM

179. Forbidden Science

"Well, (the book title, 'Forbidden Science') refers to the fact that we are witnessing something very remarkable here. We live in an era where allegedly, science is above board, it's completely rational, it's completely open and it's looking at every possible subject. And yet, here we have evidence that when a group of scientists with the right background and the right degrees, try to study seriously certain subjects, they are ostracized by the rest of the scientific community. I think that from a sociological point of view, that's absolutely fascinating. That research on UFOs should be a forbidden science. It has all the elements where valuable research could be done. We have testimony from very serious and sincere witnesses. We have traces. We have physical elements. We have things that are well within the methodology of modern science and yet, we are not permitted to study it. Officially, we have all the power of the scientific method." -- Dr. Jacques Vallee

SOURCE: http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/ForbiddenScience.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:39 PM

176. Go Octafish!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #176)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:15 PM

178. Jacques Vallee is the Man when it comes to UFOs.

"I don’t think there is such a thing as “the flying saucer phenomenon.” I think it has three components and we have to deal with them in different ways.

First, there is a physical object. That may be a flying saucer or it may be a projection or it may be something entirely different. All we know about it is that it represents a tremendous quantity of electromagnetic energy in a small volume. I say that based upon the evidence gathered from traces, from electromagnetic and radar detection and from perturbations of the electromagnetic fields such as Dr. Claude Poher, the French space scientist, has recorded.

Second, there’s the phenomenon the witnesses perceive. What they tell us is that they’ve seen a flying saucer. Now they may have seen that or they may have seen an image of a flying saucer or they may have hallucinated it under the influence of microwave radiation, or any of a number of things may have happened. The fact is that the witnesses were exposed to an event and as a result they experienced a highly complex alteration of perception which caused them to describe the object or objects that figure in their testimony.

Beyond those — the physical phenomenon and the perception phenomenon — we have the third component, the social phenomenon. That’s what happens when the reports are submitted to society and enter the cultural arena. That’s the part which I find most interesting."

SOURCE: http://integralnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/jacques-vallees-integral-approach-to.html

PS: Thank you, David Zephyr! Strange to think of what the future would hold without free thinkers and people who respect one another's ideas and perceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #178)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:13 PM

184. When will you be posting Billy Meier's story and photos...

and telling us how great they are???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #184)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:29 PM

188. Only a disinformationist would post that, in order to confuse the issue, zappaman.

As evinced by your posts, your interests seem to side with providing plausible deniability to the national security state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:22 PM

26. Well said.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - Shaw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:36 PM

35. Give us a break ....

Even if there are alien craft in other locations in the universe, there is absolutely ZERO 'definitive' evidence they have ever visited here .... Grainy, vague, unfocused images from human beings notwithstanding ....

To chastise a reasonable, skeptical person for disbelief in something that has no absolute basis in fact, is ludicrous ....

The argument that "Flying Saucers must exist, because people once said, "man will never be able to fly" ? .... Really ? ... that is your argument in support of Flying Saucer belief ? ....

Tell you what : provide incontrovertible evidence that Flying Saucers exist IN FACT, and you will convince us skeptics ...

Until then - Respect skepticism .... It's more grounded and centered than UFO fantasy ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:55 PM

42. Hmmm. Who exactly is getting chastised for expressing an opinion? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:17 PM

80. hmmmm ... I don't believe you intended to misdirect

So you probably did it subconsciously ...

you converted a statement against "woo woo" into a statement against "opinions" ....

Why did you do that? ... Where did I come out in opposition to opinions?

Did I say it was bad to have opinions?

Did I say you (or anybody else) could not have an opinion?

Say one opinion was "the hungry should be fed" ... Am I against that opinion?

If the opinion was "the hungry should be imprisoned", would you still support all opinions?

Because of your misdirection, you have blurred the line between. the frame of the message, and the message itself ... Don't worry, it happens all the time ...

I am against opinions that are based on fallacious premises ...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam ... Appeal to Ignorance

One can have an opinion that something exists in the absence of direct evidence of that existence, but such an opinion would be founded purely on a fallacious premise, since there is no accepted, direct evidence of a visitation by an extraterrestrial nature ....

Not only do I reject the opinion, but I support those who reject that opinion ... That is why I entered into this conversation to begin with.

It is quite rational to disbelieve opinions that assert belief in a thing that has no direct, empirical support to sustain belief ....

Feel free to have opinions that I disbelieve ... Don't ever think I would try to take that away from you ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #80)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:20 PM

81. Just answer my question, please. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #81)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:19 PM

91. get a grip

NT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #91)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:09 PM

96. About what I expected. Crickets. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #96)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:16 AM

104. What was it you were expecting ?

I explained it all to you in excruciating detail - I answered you, in the negative ....

You wanted a complete retelling ? .... Why ?? - you apparently didn't read my other response, otherwise you wouldn't have repeated your fallacious appeal ....

So, until you have something worthy of answering, I guess we are done ...

Time for you to go back to your dowsing, or your divining of entrails ... whatever it is you like to do ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #104)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:21 AM

108. My, my, my...you seem a little disturbed....

...in more ways than one.

And this fascination with entrails....tell us about that.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't answered my question directly. Please do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:18 AM

110. I seem disturbed ?

Please explain ... I would be interested in what you have to say about my being disturbed .... Perhaps you can illuminate a part of me I do not see myself .... Try to do your best, OK ?

Oh, and the entrails thingy ..... Yeah; That is an old superstitious tradition that has fallen by the wayside of history (although there are some shamans and witch doctors in certain regions who still pursue the practice, which is known as Haruspex). It involves divining the future and the fate of individuals or campaigns, based on how the entrails of a dead animal might be arrayed when interpreted by the divining priest (kind of like reading the tea leaves - cept it's animal guts) .... It's something that ignorant people used to do long ago before science was able to show that the results of this pursuit did not reflect any part of reality whatsoever. Some people still do it, because they refuse to acknowledge any scientific refutation of the practice ... but hey, they are free to continue doing it ... right ? ... It's their opinion that Haruspex is a good practice with real practical applications - Do you agree ? .... I mean it has no scientific basis whatsoever, so it's right in your wheelhouse, so to speak .... Give it a try ....

Here is more answer than you deserve - Sid Dithers was being chastised by another poster for expressing strong skepticism to the notion of extraterrestrial visitation, as presented by UFOlogists, and by those who insist that such visitation have occurred, even though they provide no evidence that any such events TRULY and without question have, in fact, occurred .... What that poster DID provide, however, was a list of things that, at first, was denied by reasonable people as being 'impossible' .. things like flying in the sky, beating the 4 minute mile ... Stuff that that, which eventually became reality ... what THAT poster failed to indicate was this: The refutation was all based on irrelevant facts that had no bearing on the question of extraterrestrial visitation of earth. They were mostly non sequitur fallacies, in that the statements had no bearing on the actual question at hand - They provided no proof that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

Now, let it be said here and now .... There is always a possibility that an extraterrestrial visitation MIGHT occur in reality, in the future, and, trust me, all of us 'skeptics' would be right there, changing our minds, once such actual evidence is presented and shown to be valid ..... But until then; There has been no valid evidence provided that proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that extraterrestrials HAVE visited earth .... None whatsoever ...

Now; I ask you the question - Has extraterrestrials visited planet earth ? ... Can you show any real evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that extraterrestrials HAVE visited earth ? .... I would be so pleased to see that evidence ...

But make sure it's valid and proven, in such a manner that the greater part of the scientific community can arrive at a consensus that such evidence DOES in fact prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that such visitations have occurred, and then and ONLY then, will I change my mind and become a believer ..... Until then ? ... I have no choice but to be skeptical about the matter ....

You see: I demand real evidence before I can believe such things like that .... How bout you ? ... You believe in stuff like ghosts and spirits and demons and space alien invasions of planet earth ?


Now .. about my disturbance(s) ... explain them .... Here and now .... I'll be waiting ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:58 AM

114. You seem VERY disturbed now...tell us about that, too. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #114)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:14 PM

123. And here I thought you were a sincere debater ..

You are nothing more than a hack instigator ....

Stop wasting my time ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #123)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:29 PM

125. Ooooooo....name-calling! You're VERY, VERY grumpy now!......



But have a nice day anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #125)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:37 PM

143. ''The trick would be...''

From Robert J Low, executive director of "Condon Committee," the University of Colorado Study on UFOs commissioned by USAF:

... The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective butUh having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing - the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFO's. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message.

SOURCE: http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm

That was from back in the day when the government said the dominoes would fall without victory in Vietnam.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #80)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:52 PM

99. If that is truly your opinion

Then may we assume you are non,religious or an athiest? Otherwise you sound like a hypocrite preaching from on high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:08 AM

101. Um yeah ...

Tell you what, though ....

Bring forward ANY actual 'real' evidence of either gods or extraterrestrial visitation, and I would gladly reconsider ....

I'll be waiting here ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:58 PM

74. Analogy not good as WMDs are known to exist

By scientific means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:38 PM

175. +1,000. Don't mess with my Octafish!

I'm a fan of his. Thanks for your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SidDithers (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:15 PM

44. No. That is what badufos.blogspot.ca says.

For a scientific and open-minded approach, read Ann Druffel:

GOOD-BYE, REX HEFLIN YOUR PHOTOS REMAIN

EXCERPT...

The craft seemed to "wobble," as he later described it, then stabilize and gain in speed, heading quickly toward the northeast. It traveled directly over the Santa Ana Freeway that cut across the landscape about 1 1/2 miles away and disappeared from his view.

Heflin assumed that it was some kind of experimental aircraft from El Toro Marine Base, but then he saw a ring of bluish-black smoke in the sky in the same position where the craft had disappeared from sight; he wondered if it had "blown off" its black band.

Still intrigued, he drove about a half-mile toward the smoke ring, which was gradually rising in altitude. Outside his van, he photographed the ring as it slowly traveled northeast at an angle of about 50 degrees elevation (Figure Four).

SNIP...

Rex had little or no interest in UFOs at the time and continued to think that the object he'd photographed was an experimental craft from El Toro Marine Base. Within a few weeks, however, many people had become interested in the photos, and some of Heflin's relatives gave the first three photos, which Heflin had lent them, to the SANTA ANA REGISTER, a prominent newspaper in Orange County (3).

CONTINUED...

-------

Here's a PDF to her analysis, which includes both sides of the argument, including Dr. James E. McDonald's criticisms:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:46 PM

73. I've experienced two or three bizarre happenings

with no "logical" explanation. I keep my mind open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:07 AM

100. Life is full of things Horatio never dreamed, let alone someone on DU.

You may have been fortunate to have experienced what others dream of. I hope you and yours were and are safe.

Those interested in UFOs, might want to begin their reading with works by J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee. Both eminent scientists, they helped create a scientific basis for studying UFO Reports. Their books, particularly when read in the order they were published, are outstanding reads.

As for news involving UFOs, it can be very dire.

Frederick Valentich is another important person who disappeared while being harassed by a UFO while piloting a Cessna over Bass Straight, between Tasmania and the mainLand.

The 20-year old pilot radioed a close encounter and disappeared without a trace over the straights between the mainland and Tasmania. Here's part of his last transmission:



Valentich: Melbourne, this is DSJ (Delta Sierra Juliet -- the code for Valentich's plane). Is there any known traffic below five thousand feet?

Melbourne: No known traffic

V: It, seems to be a large aircraft below five thousand.

M: What type of aircraft is it?

V: I cannot confirm. It is four bright, it seems to me like, landing lights ... the aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.

CONTINUED...

http://www.uforq.asn.au/casefiles/valentich.html



"I don't think I'll see him where I'm going."

— Valentich's father shorty before his death.

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufovalen.htm

Here's a more complete transcript:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135262

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:17 AM

105. Believe in unicorns? N-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #105)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:30 AM

112. I didn't say I "believed" in anything.

I said I keep my mind open. BIG difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #112)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:07 PM

130. You mind is open about Unicorns too? n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #130)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:36 PM

132. I've never seen a unicorn,

I don't know of anyone who has, and I've never read of any evidence that they exist. However, if any of that changes, I'll get back to you. As for UFOs and other paranormal phenomena, I think enough anecdotal accounts are out there to keep an open mind. Do you really think that mankind already knows everything there is to be known?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #132)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:33 PM

141. No, I do not. But so far there is no evidence that UFOs have visited earth. So.....

I do not think any UFO sightings are anything but people being confused. There has not been ONE bit of scientific evidence that aliens have visited earth. But if some was found I would listen.

That does not mean I do not think their might be aliens on another planet.

UFOs are like any pseudo science. ESP, Ghosts, etc. So far just a bunch of hogwash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:14 AM

103. LOL, that is your best proof???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #103)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:51 AM

116. Dr. J. Allen Hynek found the Radar-Visual cases to provide important data.

http://www.nicap.org/hynekrv6.htm

As for "proof," hate to disappoint you: the subject seems to exist at the edge of reality. We have some hard evidence, many eyewitness reports and some excellent analysis by more than a few brave researchers.

BTW: Remind me when you post something on the subject that adds to the discusion, logical. For some reason, I don't have any of your posts or comments on UFOs bookmarked. Come to think of it, I don't have any of your posts or comments on anything bookmarked. LOL, as they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #116)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:06 PM

129. You UFO believers crack me up. No proof (scientific proof, read about it) and now with.....

Cameras EVERYWHERE, you would assume their would be better and better video. But nope!

Wanting there to be UFOs does not mean they exist.

And you using Hynek is funny as hell. He was not even relevant in the 70s.

Go read some of Phillip J Klass books. Maybe they will help with your confusion.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #129)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:33 PM

131. Philip Klass was a great writer and a professional skeptic and debunker.

Which is someone who goes about things in a most unscientific manner.



SOURCE: http://keyholepublishing.com/New%20Klass%20Letter%20Found.htm

OTOH: Stanton Friedman has approached the subject in a scientific manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #131)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:40 PM

146. That letter sounds kind to me. I will gladly compare Klass expertise and background to Friedman. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #146)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:04 PM

163. There's a big difference between them. Your guy worked to silence discussion.

He was even willing to libel Stanton Friedman. Were he alive and he did that to me, he would be sued for all he had.

On DU, turds like that are called "disruptor."

My guy, Stanton Friedman, presents his information and invites others to examine his data and analysis.

Now, which is scientific and which is disrupting investigation?

Those who can't tell the difference, are irrelavent in every way that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #163)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:06 PM

165. Stanton Friedman?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Octafish, do you believe the Hill's account too???

"But the real root of Friedman's rage is my explanation of how his precious Fish Map - the supposed identification of an alleged star map drawn by Betty Hill after her "abduction" on board a UFO - is now entirely invalidated by newer data. Friedman writes, "Bobby wants me to renounce all of Marjorie's work because there is better data now." No, Stan, that's a gross misrepresentation. I expect you, and anyone else who claims to be "scientific," to renounce the Fish Map because the pattern it claims to find is now known to be incorrect.

The supposed match of the Fish pattern with Betty Hill's sketch was never very good to begin with. Compare the "Hill Map" at top right with the "computer generated map" below it. Do they look like a "match" to you? (The "computer generated map" shows the Fish pattern plotted correctly, using the old Gliese catalog data.). As noted in 1976 by Steven Soter and Carl Sagan, the only reason that the patterns seem to match is because of the way that the lines are drawn.

The inclusion of these lines (said to represent trade or navigation routes) to establish a resemblance between the maps is what a lawyer would call "leading the witness".

Eliminate the lines, and the patterns of dots look as different as could be. And that is the Good News for Stanton Friedman. Now the situation gets even worse."

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/12/friedmans-frenzy.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #165)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:55 PM

166. Don't take his hero away from him. It is all they have really. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #163)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:02 PM

167. You say that letter is libel??? How? n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #116)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:45 PM

148. I alway love to ask the believers this question.....please answer....

What, if you had to pick ONE documented event, would you choose as your proof case that UFOs are visiting aliens? Roswell? MJ12? Etc.

Please provide your most believable event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #148)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:51 PM

149. Apparently, it's the hat we see in post #6

Amazing that all these years later someone would present THAT as evidence.

"If researchers are genuine in their quest to find truth in the UFO phenomena, they must be prepared to accept when cherished UFO "evidence" turns out to be the result of fraud. Such is the case with some very famous flying saucer photos from the early years that are forever emblazoned in many of our memories. They have appeared in countless books and magazines and today on numerous websites. They have continued to keep our minds in wonder over the decades. But we need not wonder any more about four pieces of such "photographic evidence."

It can now be revealed that the world-famous Rex Heflin Photos; the Cumberland "Spaceman" Photo; the Zanesville, OH Barber's photos and the William Rhodes 1947 photos were all hoaxes."



http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/10/ufos-that-never-were-classic-photos-now.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #149)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:56 PM

151. Amazing, wow, it amazes me how little evidence there is for this crap. Thanks for link! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #151)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:07 PM

154. Why do so many UFOs have flashing lights???

Do they need flashing lights while crossing the universe?
Is there a junkyard where they can replace their flashing lights after they go out?
And what's with the anal probing?
And how do they know to only show up in front of those with bad cameras?
I guess we will never be ever to understand their alien minds...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #154)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:39 PM

158. That always cracked me up. You fly across the universe but forgot to turn off the running lights. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #148)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:53 PM

181. Hey, logical! Your DU Journal is empty.

Please add some of your informative OPs so I can better answer your question.

Otherwise, there really isn't a reason for my answering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #181)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:15 PM

185. Right...just another way to avoid answering any questions ever directed to you....

that you can't answer!!!


How utterly transparent of you, my friend!
I expected better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #185)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:15 PM

186. So your name is 'logical,' too, zappaman?

How many of you are there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #186)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:13 PM

189. So when will UFOs be proved? 5 years? 10? LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:36 PM

174. He was attacked by Oddjob

?quality=0.91

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:18 PM

8. This deserves a thread? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:27 PM

11. This thread doesn't need more cowbell,

it needs more SidDithers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:50 PM

41. Heya...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:26 PM

71. You are wrong on this one Sid

Watch this documentary footage and see how wrong you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #71)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:34 PM

72. Well. That settles it...

/thread

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:38 PM

13. Intelligent life has visited this planet ...

and decided to quarantine it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:21 PM

69. Yep - Like a prison planet for our DNA

Or an insane asylum....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:00 PM

17. You are limited to one dimension

This one..there are other things beyond what the eye or ears can detect in other dimensions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:04 PM

182. Yup. Edgar Cayce's story was not explainable by anything in this dimension.

If you believe in God, you already do believe in another dimension. What proof do you have of God--or are you as crazy as those UFOlogists?

Even scientists like Einstein believed that certain "givens" (like time itself) were anything but.

Trillions of stars and we're the only life? Highly unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:36 PM

36. Maybe, maybe not.

TBH, whether UFOs exist or not isn't something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

But I'm curious, why the need for absolute denial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:30 PM

47. Obvious answer to the "why the need for absolute denial?" question:

FEAR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:57 PM

43. Well, thank goodness that's been settled. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:58 PM

53. up here

in WA state, we are squeezed between 2 large military complexes. We have seen a number of strange things, but who can say what they are with an AFB right next door. An UFO doesnt always mean flying saucers or tea cups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:06 PM

58. The UFO cover story served Area 51 well...

considered to be THE most secretive area on the planet, it actually served as the development site for top-secret spy planes and stealth aircraft. Chelyabinsk is not that dissimilar related to nuclear weapons and "gravity bomb" development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #58)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:10 PM

64. What??!!??

You have any evidence whatsoever it was anything except a meteor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #64)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:15 PM

67. I'm a big fan of meteors and bolides...

and this looked like a typical bolide, albeit too close for comfort.

BUT, at 10 feet and travelling at 33,000 mph I think it is within the realm of possibility that it could also have been man-made.

As for the Chelyabinsk facility, you can read all about it here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/chelyabinsk-70_nuc.htm

...

The U.S. Department of Commerce has listed Chelyabinsk-70 as engaging in weapons proliferation and has required U.S. companies to inquire about whether to submit license applications for all exports to these destinations. This addition to what Commerce calls the Entity List were published June 30, 1997 in a Federal Register notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:12 PM

65. Awesome thread!

Rec!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:12 PM

76. Really?

Since most Russians have Dash cams, are you telling me that if someone presented a video of a Space Craft landing on a deserted highway you are going to believe it? >...REALLY?


I'M Going to guess you would say its been faked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:05 PM

79. UFOs do exist. and so do alien life forms.

It would be silly to think otherwise, considering how extreamly vast the Universe is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #79)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:16 PM

90. Exactly.

How narrow minded do you have to be to think we are alone in all that vastness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:13 AM

102. None have visited us. UFO exist, but not spaceships! n -t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:17 AM

106. AND, since more and more Scientists adhere to the theory of Life itself came to Earth

"onboard" some or many of these space rocks, just like all of the H2O molecules...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:27 PM

173. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:37 PM

83. ...or big foot, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, miracles, welfare queens. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:47 PM

85. Russians are unique in that so many have dash cams

(due to pervasive insurance fraud). But even they haven't had so many for very long. If legit UFOs exist but are rare, there might not have been an opportunity.

Also, aliens or whatever might know they have lots of video cameras always on and avoid the country now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:49 PM

86. Hosts didn't lock this.

Clearly tHEY'RE IN ON IT!!11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #86)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:27 PM

93. IKR!?!?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:03 PM

88. Do some research first, at least.

Quote: "What could be more rare than a meteor crashing?"

Meteorites are not "rare."

Big ones could be called that from the limited perspective of humans stuck in short-term thinking patterns, but on an astronomical time scale, big ones are also common.

Cornell astronomy site:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470

It's a bit hard to tell exactly how many meteorites hit Earth each year. Most meteors that you see in the sky are caused by pea-sized pieces of rock and there's a lot of stuff this size in the solar system that Earth can run into! We can estimate the number of meteorites per year by carefully monitering the meteorites per day in one area, for example by using an all-sky camera to image the meteors visible in a given location, and then assume that all areas get roughly the same number of meteorites and add up the total.

Another way to tell how many meteorites hit Earth each year is to look at the number of meteorites found in dry regions where there isn't much vegtation or erosion (like deserts), where you expect to be able to find most of the meteorites that fell. We can get an estimate of how long ago the meteorite fell to Earth by looking at how it's been weathered, or altered by Earth's atmosphere and the local climate. Then we can plot how many meteorites fell at that region per year.

However, I can still find a lot of different estimates for how much stuff hits Earth each year, partly because different studies look at different size ranges, and all the procedures have errors. Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons. Most of this mass would come from dust-sized particles.

A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth. However, unlike the number above this does not include the small dust particles. They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year. Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year. But most meteorites are too small to actually fall all the way to the surface. (This study was led by P. A. Bland and was published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:15 PM

89. It's funny how many UFO defenders are replying to this thread without...

...coming close to addressing your question, "Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?"

They post the same old unimpressive, poorly focused, easily faked or mistaken pictures that have been around for years, that have remained rare and have NOT increased in frequency the way images and video of other rarely-photographed events.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by those crappy old images.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by asking why someone likes debunking.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by some generic recommendation that people should be more open minded.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by pointing out the fact that some people have been laughed at but later proven right, nor by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people laughed at turn out to be very wrong, and that it's the rare event, the exception, that becomes a memorable but unrepresentative story of the reliability of wacky ideas.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by bringing up the much greater possibility that there is some sort of alien life out there somewhere. In fact, if that argument applies at all, it's a reason to expect more good pictures, not fewer, if aliens are visiting this planet.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is not answered by rehashing old stories which might be curious, odd, or still unexplained.

"Why can't the UFO nuts get footage like that?" is certainly not answered by babbling on about being "limited to one dimension". WTF is up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #89)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:35 AM

120. Not nearly as funny as the debunkers who can post nothing but cheap shots and ridicule.

For recent videos on UFOs, try researching the Mexico City wave in the early-90s. Tons of footage shot by tee vee news crews that's available online.

One thing that particularly interests me, is the similarity in the number and behavior of the objects when compared to early films shot by civilians in the USA in the 1950s, particularly the Trementon, Utah and Great Falls, Montana films.

Please, take a look at them and make your own judgement.

PS: If you need help with GOOGLE, just ask.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #120)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:43 AM

122. You're missing (or avoiding) the point right there.

If there's good stuff from the early 90s, why not increasingly greater stuff over the past twenty years?

What's happened? The aliens got bored with us? They improved their cloaking devices to deal with cell phone cameras?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #122)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:53 PM

137. No. My point is you don't know much about the subject.

If you did, you would understand what I wrote about and how it ties to events in the present day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #137)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:09 PM

139. So you're trying to claim that, if only I studied the subject...

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

...of UFOs like you have (see "Courtier's Reply" -- a common rhetorical dodge), a reason would leap out at me for why people captured supposedly great pictures in the early 90s, but aren't getting lots of great pictures now?

This is not a side issue of why you think that old stuff should be taken more seriously, but a claim that there's something in there that would SPECIFICALLY be germane to the question of why the past twenty years have not produced more frequent, higher quality, and more convincing evidence of UFOs (specifically as alien beings or other non-mundane phenomena)?

Or are you just off on a tangent, basically saying you don't care about the OP question, you think this other supposed "evidence" is something people should pay attention to, regardless of how it applies or doesn't apply to the question at hand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #139)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:53 PM

150. Yes, you should also study ESP, Ghosts, dowsing, feng shui, etc! :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:24 PM

92. So you are saying that UFOs should crash into the planet

for media exposure? Brilliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:26 AM

111. Because meteors burn up and explode.

Completely different than a flying object, identified or not. How many jets are on those video cameras?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:12 AM

118. The meteors don't have the Men in Black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:30 PM

126. Damn, there goes my explanation for my boss

AND, several co-workers. I was living with the hope that their mother ship would come back and re-claim them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:24 PM

140. Rough test, considering usable and discernible evidence of meteors would pre-date

things like the Earth orbiting the sun, the existence of planets, and I'd reckon that a wolf didn't swallow the moon every morning.

It happens everyday most are very small and burn up but there are hits and craters. People find them. The numbers advantage to asteroids is pretty intense compared to other potential objects of any size in the observable universe. It wouldn't be too shocking to discover there are more asteroids and such just in our solar system than grains of sand on our small world.

Even a bountiful amount of space faring extra-terrestrial societies compared to the available number of intelligent beings in environments that lend themselves to developing such technologies would be super tiny compared to meteors. Add in intercepting with the Earth in reliable human observation period in such a fashion to leave evidence is puny.

Tough test logically. Too tough to be of worth to answering the question. Add in technological advantage in being able to reach our world and I'd argue they could be here 24/7 and how the hell would we know? I'm thinking all kinds of stealth technology is easier to reach than interstellar flight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:39 PM

145. well, opinions are like.....opinions. your's is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:41 PM

147. I saw a UFO at work 3 months ago.

Whether or not it was the alien type I dunno. Me and my buddy were out having a smoke break. Facing east is Tampa International Airport. He told me to look above an aircraft that was traveling south-southwest at approximately 20k feet. I told him I didn't see a thing. He kept saying its right there above where that plane was. He then handed me his polarized glasses and I saw it. It was circular and I thought maybe a weather ballon or something, then it took off vertically out of site.

He said he had been looking at it for 3 minutes or so before he said something to me.it was stationary the entire time we were looking at it. It was very high, I thought maybe the space station, or a weather ballon. But that didn't explain it hauling ass vertically out of sight.

I have been flying for 18 years and never witnessed a "UFO" before. This was very weird and neither one of us could explain it. Im not going to say I saw a ET UFO, but I definitely saw something that I've never seen before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:01 PM

152. You mean there have not really been droves of UFOs visiting the earth from

solar system(s) untold countless trillions of miles away. Don't be such a spoil-sport by raining on our parade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:02 PM

153. Why is it that the only people who see Bigfoots just happen to have a camera that doesn't focus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:34 PM

157. The COMETA Report

To relegate all those interested in the subject as nuts and kooks is just as naive as those who believe every story that comes down the pike. The COMETA Report is published by very serious people with very serious titles. To dismiss their findings as folklore or crazy talk is not fair assessment of the phenomenon. As an atheist I have little use for unscientific beliefs but my mind is not so closed to reject any and all theories because the implications may be fantastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:09 PM

160. Saw my first "UFO" earlier this month

I've been watching satellites since I was a very small child. My dad was a NASA scientist, and would often point them out to me. In the 1980s I subscribed to mailings from Goddard Spaceflight Center for satellite orbital elements and manually enter them into a computer program so I could watch for them. Later these became available at places like Compuserve and AOL which was a big time saver. Today, satellite observers can use sites like Heavens Above to plan satellite observations:

http://www.heavens-above.com/

I'm a pretty experienced observer. I've seen things that I recognize as natural or man-made that might bring a flood of "UFO" calls from people who do not spend much time looking up.

This time of year, I'm up and at work before dawn, but I usually don't take the time to look for satellites in the morning. In any case, it was only a half hour before sunrise and the sky was already bright enough so that only the Moon was visible overhead. But from the west, I saw a bright point of light. It was about as bright as Venus (which would have been the eastern sky) and moving. I watched for several minutes as it moved from west to southeast, passing close to the moon and eventually fading out in the predawn sky. I was quite certain that it was probably the International Space Station, which I had seen many, many times before. Few satellites are even close to being that bright.

So, as soon as it was gone, I went inside and checked on the Heavens Above sight. Nope, the ISS was over a different part of the Earth. I printed out a complete list of every satellite that could have been visible from my location that morning. There was an old Soviet rocket booster that was passing over on that path at that time, but the predicted brightness was dimmer than magnitude 4, so it should not have been visible in a sky that already to bright for any stars to be seen. It turned out that the same rocket booster would pass over that evening - about half an hour after sunset - so I could observe the brightness of the same object in similar conditions. It was not bright enough to see. It is possible that it was the rocket booster, but it just happened to be have a very reflective surface point at me in the morning. But generally, rocket boosters do tumble and if one surface is very reflective it will fade in and out as it rotates. This was constantly bright as it moved across the sky. And as I mentions, the ISS is the only thing I know of up there that comes close to being that bright.

Possible explanations:

1. A very large, bright satellite not cataloged at Heavens Above
2. It was the ISS, but Heavens Above was showing the wrong position (I have not had that happen before - ever)
3. It was the Soviet rocket, but an unusually bright surface was reflecting sunllight at me for several minutes.
4. It was not the satellite, but instead a very high altitude aircraft (too far see lights). There was no contrail or blinking lights.

That's my UFO story. Not a fly saucer, dramatic dash-cam video, or anything exciting, just a bright point of light moving across the sky that, despite my experience, I can't identify.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:30 PM

161. Two points

A UFO is an un identified flying object. This does not imply extraterrestrial, but you knew that.

Secondly, this is hubris, to believe that earth is the only world in this galaxy, let alone the universe, where life can exist. Given the extensive and growing catalogue of worlds found.

Oh a third point, we expect to find another earth this year, you should look into exo planets.

I suspect that when evidence of life in another word is found you will deny this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #161)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:35 PM

162. No one said anything you assert

"Secondly, this is hubris, to believe that earth is the only world in this galaxy, let alone the universe, where life can exist. Given the extensive and growing catalogue of worlds found."
No one said that we are alone in the universe. Try reading again.

"Oh a third point, we expect to find another earth this year, you should look into exo planets."
Thank you Dr. Brezinkski.

'I suspect that when evidence of life in another word is found you will deny this.'
You would be wrong...again. Why you think the people on this thread arguing science would be in denial if life were found outside Earth is beyond me. But most of what you post doesn't make sense, so let's just throw this into that pile, shall we?

Thanks for wading in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #161)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:20 PM

191. LOL, so when do you expect this to happen? The difference between...

"Believers" and scientists is that scientists will immediately admit when they are wrong. Believers never will.
I imagine most skeptics know more about exoplanets (one word) than any UFO believers.
Finding life means different things to different people. UFO nuts thinks flying saucers are buzzing earth. They are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:40 PM

177. When those hawt alien women arrive for mating season, you are so NOT getting an invite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:19 PM

190. This thread is all kinds of awesome...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread