Following on from various threads about UFOs and alien life forms I have opened this thread for various thoughts and discussions in general about the subject, rather than going off on tangents on other dedicated threads.
So if you would like to discuss anything related to little green men or their spaceships this is the place to post.
Other threads can still be setup for specific sightings or events obviously.
In the previous thread I mentioned their sometimes-incredible acceleration. Having spoken to experts like Jacques Vallee, Spielberg copies a bit of that in "Close Encounters..."
Woah that's a nice video. Could be cgi but it looked good when one orb came flying toward the camera and he jumped! A bit of advertising for the village though so it does make me wonder if this is just a great bit of tourist promotion!
Could be cgi but it looked good when one orb came flying toward the camera and he jumped
You're just too suspicious, Jas! I understand enough Italian to know what the guy was saying and believe me, the whole thing was genuine. And very interesting. I once saw something not really like that at all (but a bit IYKWIM) and inexplicable just the same, in the back garden of my old place. Well, two things really on the same afternoon but I really can't describe them in writing.
Also at the end of one of Stuart Wilde's books (I've only read two but the title escapes me) he mentions seeing some kind of shining orb, about the size of a tennis ball IIRC. There are more things in heaven and earth, Caveman...
I think you have to have an element of suspicion when looking at these, although I am a firm believer in ETs.
There is also the balls of light phenomena which is something to do with the weather. I'm sure this Italian 'job' wasn't those though! People have seen these balls of light in their gardens like you say, and also flying over fields before crop circles are created so who knows!
I think you have to have an element of suspicion when looking at these, although I am a firm believer in ETs.
There is also the balls of light phenomena which is something to do with the weather. I'm sure this Italian 'job' wasn't those though! People have seen these balls of light in their gardens like you say, and also flying over fields before crop circles are created so who knows!
The 'thing' I saw in my garden was tiny - just a bead of light really that whooshed straight up into the sky though I could still see it shining for ages. The same afternoon I saw a kind of 'flight' of several pea sized orbs playing follow my leader like the red arrows just a foot or so above the ground. They also disappeared into the garden behind mine. I was fascinated believe me but it all happened very quickly. Just time to think 'WTF' and they were gone!
Be aware that right at the end you get a chance to click onto "Part 2", bottom right of the picture-screen.
Now, a few of these clips maybe shouldn't have been included. There are little bits of debris that can come off a spacecraft and catch the sun. There are also satellites up there. However, none of these should ever stop, start, or change direction.
Most impressively, here in Parts 1 and 2 you get astronauts or mission controllers saying things like, "Here's that object that's been tagging us" or "We have an unidentified flying object", during missions.
We have Dr Ed Mitchell, while on the moon's surface with another astronaut, seeming almost blase about something. You hear them while seeing them:
Mitchell: "Looks like we have visitors, again."
"Yeah."
Mitchell: <I didn't write it down but something like:> "Gets so it's hardly worth mentioning."
"Agreed."
After his return, astronaut Dr. Ed Mitchell is interviewed, and says he knows there are UFOs, visitors, he's been briefed and had meetings. The governments keep it secret. And he wouldn't be surprised if a few of the less sophisticated are ours, from back-engineering, since Roswell did happen.
He's a good scientist and networker. I've read his scientific papers since the 1970s. And I never knew he moved as a young boy and grew up in Roswell! So he knew the people involved.
The Italians were just saying what anyone would in the circumstances: 'Look. What's that? Gosh. Ah, it's dividing. Look at the little one. There they go....' That sort of thing.
xxx
A craft getting in very close to airstrikes in Iraq? At 1.05 minutes do we see it graze the ground by a road or canal, hitting earth upward, or is that an effect of grainy photography? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtEhm...eature=related
A craft getting in very close to airstrikes in Iraq? At 1.05 minutes do we see it graze the ground by a road or canal, hitting earth upward, or is that an effect of grainy photography? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtEhm...eature=related
V
If you compare the relationship of the object to the ground with the object to the aircraft, it's obvious that it is related to the aircraft.
This is a digital image and therefore grain in the normal sense of the word doesn't apply.
IMO the object's movement is in relation to the aircraft, not the ground or camera position (the camera is "locked" and therefore compensates for the changes in the aircraft's pitch and bearing). Therefore my conclusion is that it is an artifact from either the optical flat, lens or sensor mechanism.
IMO the object's movement is in relation to the aircraft, not the ground or camera position (the camera is "locked" and therefore compensates for the changes in the aircraft's pitch and bearing). Therefore my conclusion is that it is an artifact from either the optical flat, lens or sensor mechanism.
But that's just a wild guess .
It's true that it could be anything, as we simply see a white dot. It's not, for example, as highly unusual as the Italian clip posted first on this thread. As a mere dot, it's very hard to know. In browsing Youtube for UFO clips (which I found myself doing, as there was no such thing as Youtube when I first became interested), you find highly unusual sights, and then 'objects' which only a layperson would mistake for a "UFO" (such as some of the bits of debris shining in the sun next to NASA vehicles).
By the way, I recall from years nearer to the event that there was some suggested normal explanation (I forget what) to Ed Mitchell's comments on the moon about "visitors".
On this "UFO over Iraq during bombing" sequence, I'm still caught both ways TBH. If the dot is indeed actually an object near to the ground, on the one hand why doesn't it react to explosions so close to it? Yet we can't second-guess any non-human intelligence, and possibly at 1.05 it brushes the ground (if we think of it as a vehicle, not optical). Thereafter it appears to leave a slight "vapour trail", for example especially visible as it passes through the smoke at 1.45 and 1.50. (However this could also be an optical effect - it's too slight to really tell.)
Seeing some of the NASA footage is interesting. Interesting too that Buzz Aldrin admits that while there was no official policy during the Apollo programme not to report UFOs while in flight, if they did see anything technically a "UFO" - and they did - they felt it often the better part of wisdom to keep quiet until they got back to Earth. (Not going public.)
Thanks for those links David. Some of the footage on those NASA compilations are incredible! Yes many are satellites, lense marks or space debris but many simply cannot be explained. The footage of them tracking an object that is flying across the moon surface is unbelievable, especially as it changes direction and speed so much.
After watching those compilations I can't see how anyone with half a brain can deny that there is something else out there.
After watching those compilations I can't see how anyone with half a brain can deny that there is something else out there.
I sometimes think it's because there's (cue X-Files music) "Nothing In There". (The half-brains!) However, "believers" can be over-credulous, so skeptics are useful for keeping us on our toes, mayhap. Though the utterly closed-minded, I admit, can be frankly annoying. So the best kind of skeptic IMHO are those who accept the reality of UFOs given the evidence, but nevertheless are pretty cautious. This is true science, to me.
I had my 48 hours of looking through Youtube , but visuals are actually still nothing like the best evidence. Best evidence is when, say, hundreds of people from all walks of life, who don't know each other, all say they saw a non-human craft. (There's such a case, with a Youtube link, about at least hundreds of Russians who saw a craft land in their town square or park, and three nine-foot beings get out! It's an account I know of from years back; but the Youtube link has a faulty soundtrack. And its only interviews, no visuals.)
Youtube footage just goes on and on. You can enter a nation such as "Brazilian UFO", or try other things such as the Challenger shuttle disaster, where a strange object was filmed after the explosion. Etc., etc.
Now that sounds interesting, but surely out of all those people someone had a camera? Perhaps it was a long time ago? Can find any links about it, o youtube guru?
The agency had informed the entire world that Russian scientists had confirmed that an alien spaceship carrying giants with tiny heads had landed in Voronezh, a city of over 800,000 people located about 300 miles southeast of Moscow. They stated that as many as three of these giant creatures had emerged from the alien ship. The ship was described as a large, shining ball. These strange creatures were said to have walked in a nearby park, accompanied by a menacing robot. Ironically, TASS was the only media member to print the story in Russia. The newspaper Pravda declined to print, or comment on the strange tale.
In defense of the TASS account, Soviet reporter Skaya Kultura said that the agency was following the ''the golden rule of journalism." "The reader must know everything.''
The TASS account stated that the UFO landed in Voronezh on September 27, 1989, at 6:30 P.M. Young boys playing soccer witnessed the event, stating that a pinkish glow preceded the descent of the unusual flying craft. The pink glow became a deep red as it touched down. Most witnesses described the object as a flattened, disc shape. A crowd quickly gathered, and peered through a hatch that opened. They saw a ''three-eyed alien'' about 10 feet tall, clad in silvery overalls and bronze-colored boots and wearing a disk on his chest. "
The TASS account also stated: "A boy screamed with fear, but when the alien gazed at him, with eyes shining, he fell silent, unable to move. Onlookers screamed, and the UFO and the creatures disappeared."
According to the report, about five minutes later, they reappeared. The alien had an object similar to a pistol - a tube about 20 inches long, which it pointed at an unidentified 16-year-old boy, making him disappear. The alien went inside the sphere, which then took off. At the same time, the boy reappeared.
"Children and eyewitnesses of the abnormal phenomenon have been questioned by police workers and journalists," wrote E. Efremov, the Voronezh correspondent for Soviet Skaya Kultura."
"There are no discrepancies in the description of the sphere itself or the actions of the aliens. Moreover, all the children who became witnesses to this event are still afraid, even now."
Several drawings were made by some of the children who supposedly witnessed the events of Voronezh. A couple of these are included here. One of the drawings showed the Cyrillic alphabet character "zhe" on the side of the UFO.
TASS listed three witnesses' names, all of whom were youngsters. They also stated that a group of international researchers would be investigating the claims of the witnesses.
Voronezh residents interviewed later claimed they had observed this UFO not just during the above incident but also many times on September 21, 23, 29 and October 2, between 6 and 9 PM. Some of these incidents involved a different entity: small, with grayish-green face and blue overcoat resembling a loose raincoat.
This phenomenal account is still in need of more eye witness testimony and research. The Voronezh landing remains an unsolved mystery.
Actually it's not the best example. Western researchers are often skeptical, because they were not able then to get there and investigate for themselves. Has it been exaggerated, they ask? Ufologist Jacques Vallee, as I seem to recall, suggested it was part of a Soviet disinformation incident, staged by the authorities. But to what purpose?
-------------------------------------------------
It's worth pointing out that reports of humanoid aliens are relatively common in the world. The year of Voronezh, 1989, I find that almost 400 reports have been collected on just one site: http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1989.shtml
They're a mixed bag, but such reports come in year after year. Some are questionable, some are skimpy on data, others are multiple-witness accounts from professional people.
If some stories seem bizarre, we have to remind ourselves that we are not likely to come against just what we expect!
Nice find Sherlock Sounds very much like a typical B-movie though doesn't it? 1989 and yet no photos
Seems like NASA are heading back to the moon today with 2 data gathering lunar probes to determine if the moon has water and is suitable for a manned base station - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8107197.stm
It will be interesting, especially with todays technology, to see how much space footage we get from this, especially of the moon. HD moon video would be superb. I'm sure UFO nuts (er...does that mean us?) are going to be dissecting all the available data that NASA lets us see.
"believers" can be over-credulous, so skeptics are useful for keeping us on our toes, mayhap. Though the utterly closed-minded, I admit, can be frankly annoying. So the best kind of skeptic IMHO are those who accept the reality of UFOs given the evidence, but nevertheless are pretty cautious.
I suppose I come into that category. I've heard yogis with authority speak about UFOs and life on other planets and I've come to my own understanding of the phenomenon.
It seems to me that an interest in UFOs is an expression of our innate desire to understand the larger mysteries of life of which we occasionally catch glimpses.
One side effect of this desire though, can be that we suspend of the use of our critical faculties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caveman
Woah that's a nice video. Could be cgi but it looked good
I've hesitated to post here so as to avoid being seen as the party pooper. I didn't find the Italian video convincing.
The main reason being that it seems to be an advert for a holiday resort posted on Youtube with the other UFO videos in order to be reach the largest audience.
The pointing woman (with the alien hair style) barely has time to see the object come over the horizon before reacting inthe way she did.
The video has obviously been edited (and manipulated - the speed up), but why was it not edited just to show the 'sighting'?
The focusing on the far hillside is what I've previously referred to as 'amateurising'; this gives it the appearance of spontaneity and makes the UFO seem like a physical object rather than an effect added later. The ridge where the object first appeared wasn't out of focus.
These are just my thoughts. They don't mean that I dismiss the existence of UFOs. There are so many people caught up with the UFO phenomenon looking for 'proof' and lots of very ingenious people out there happy to provide it.
Some of the NASA footage is inriguing and needs a bit of explaining.
I'd probably be blank-minded and not know what to think. Or, as we humans tend to, just from my own personality I'd start to make judgements? But I did in my youth read these thousands of reports I'd say - just written-up reports in those days and sometimes skimpy on research and data. From people who had no desire to get publicity, made no money, and often didn't want to come forward - some stayed anonymous. To read that vast swathe gives one a 'feel' for the kind of events that happen. It's certainly not fail-safe. (Others could have read the reports, then made fake videos.) But many clips show the kind of varied phenomena people actually wouldn't tend to expect (from sci-fi, say); so it's a kind of confirmation that "Yes, that's what people have seen, but without wide publicity, for decades".
I came across some very obvious fakes on Youtube - wobbly fleets of saucers and such. Gerry Anderson in his early style! I think that's what most attempts at fakes will come out as. Moreover, there's actually not a lot of motive in creating a sophisticated, time-consuming faked film, usually. Did you see the Italian village? I think it's where Borat grew up!
Anyway, after an early focus (excuse pun) upon video footage, the fact is that most Ufological data does not take this form. In the case of a multiple-witness sighting, there's leg-work, interviews, mapping, all kinds of things to do ideally - until the case boils down to a clearly anomalous phenomenon not "faked" by anyone and seen widely in the area. (That Australian case of the craft that sucked up water from a lake, for example.)
5Likes
The UFO Thread
this is the place to post.
However, "believers" can be over-credulous, so skeptics are useful for keeping us on our toes, mayhap. Though the utterly closed-minded, I admit, can be frankly annoying. So the best kind of skeptic IMHO are those who accept the reality of UFOs given the evidence, but nevertheless are pretty cautious. This is true science, to me.
Linear Mode
Learn about therapies
and find a therapist