Posted: 7/21/2012 5:50:27 PM EDT
|
Do you agree or disagree? I think it should be reopened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no need to. Why is that? Because he's never seen an unexplainable craft. Soon as he see's one, he'll say, "Holy fornicate! They should reopen Project Blue Book!" If he never sees one? He will remain skeptical - but wrong - forever.  Even if most reports can be explained there is the % that can't that is what is interesting to me. |
|
Quoted: When I was a kid, I remember a TV series about Air Force investigators and UFOs called "Project UFO", based on project blue book.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVVADz0AfssI loved that program. |
|
Quoted: There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? |
|
Quoted:
When I was a kid, I remember a TV series about Air Force investigators and UFOs called "Project UFO", based on project blue book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVVADz0Afss
I would have sworn there was a 1970's TV show called "Project Bluebook". I must just be remembering wrong as I can't imagine there having been two such similar TV series with such similar names at the same time. |
|
Quoted: Alright cut all welfare reopen PBBQuoted: Quoted: Well this time without an agenda only 100% fact basedWhy? It was a cover to streamline data output on UFOs and to provide mundane explanations for them when appropriate. It's time to cut 47% of existing .gov. Why would I ADD more? |
|
The number of photographs not easily explained or that are not hoaxes is extremely small.
I've seen many UFO's - most were airplanes, one or two were helicopters, and one was a missile launch. Quoted:
Quoted:
There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? |
|
I know what I saw. I wouldn't have believed it, but I saw it myself.
Someday I'll write out the whole event again, but not right now. It's not very exciting. Didn't change my life or anything. However, I no longer have to sit and wonder, "Is there really something - whatever it is - unexplained flying around out there?" I know the answer is, "Yes." 
|
|
Quoted: I know what I saw. I wouldn't have believed it, but I saw it myself. Someday I'll write out the whole event again, but not right now. It's not very exciting. Didn't change my life or anything. However, I no longer have to sit and wonder, "Is there really something - whatever it is - unexplained flying around out there?" I know the answer is, "Yes." Would love to hear it.. |
|
Quoted: The number of photographs not easily explained or that are not hoaxes is extremely small. I've seen many UFO's - most were airplanes, one or two were helicopters, and one was a missile launch. I don't agree. While I do not uncritically espouse the "It's Aliens! No other explanation!" conclusion, I do not believe that the best-quality photographs are easily explained, or hoaxes, in the majority. (Vallee's book, Dimensions, had a profound effect on my opinion in this matter.) Shaky snaps of a tiny dot of light, or a streak across the night sky? Those photos prove really nothing, granted; the Rex Heflin photos (for only one example) are not so easily dismissed. I love your username, dorobuta, because I knew what it meant the first time I read it, but I think you're letting your own experiences, summed up in your second statement, close your mind. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I would love to see an example. |
|
Quoted:
The number of photographs not easily explained or that are not hoaxes is extremely small. I've seen many UFO's - most were airplanes, one or two were helicopters, and one was a missile launch. Quoted:
Quoted:
There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I don't trust photographs. I'll take confirmed radar returns with multiple pilot sightings. JAL Flight over Alaska November 17, 1986 Air Force RB-47 - July 17, 1957 And then just for good measure I'll throw in the Bentwaters sighting in 1980 by multiple Air Force security and the deputy base commander. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I would love to see an example. Google image search is your friend. I suggest you begin with the Heflin photos mentioned above. Seriously, anybody who has ever looked into this for more than 2 minutes, and NOT said to themselves, "Damn, what the hell is THAT?" is beginning with a closed mind. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The number of photographs not easily explained or that are not hoaxes is extremely small. I've seen many UFO's - most were airplanes, one or two were helicopters, and one was a missile launch. Quoted: Quoted: There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I don't trust photographs. I'll take confirmed radar returns with multiple pilot sightings. JAL Flight over Alaska November 17, 1986 Air Force RB-47 - July 17, 1957 And then just for good measure I'll throw in the Bentwaters sighting in 1980 by multiple Air Force security and the deputy base commander. Can't argue too hard with your point. There was a Discovery channel program a couple of years ago about airline pilot sightings, and it included, in every case (IIRC), the recorded radio traffic between the pilot/crews of the aircraft and the local towers. In almost every case there were confirmed radar contacts of what the air crews reported. Worth watching if it's ever run again. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: When I was a kid, I remember a TV series about Air Force investigators and UFOs called "Project UFO", based on project blue book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVVADz0AfssI would have sworn there was a 1970's TV show called "Project Bluebook". I must just be remembering wrong as I can't imagine there having been two such similar TV series with such similar names at the same time. I seem to remember that as well, but 33 years ago is a little foggy to me. Google just turns up "project ufo", as far as tv shows go. |
|
Quoted:
There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Exactly . Big Foot , Nessie , and all the other odd sightings that seemed to be so common in the 70's and 80's have all but dried up . You have these absolutely ridiculous ghost hunters that can never seem to get a damned shred of any kind of proof either . ( My ex loves those shows  , not I )
I think that there has to be extra-terrestrial life out there , but if they have the technology to travel all this way , then I'd expect they have some sort of stealth technology as well . . . . .and are probably using drones of some sort , anyways . I'd like to see continued research with radio telescopes to 'monitor' the heavens , but can we really afford to do much else ? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I would love to see an example. Google image search is your friend. I suggest you begin with the Heflin photos mentioned above. Seriously, anybody who has ever looked into this for more than 2 minutes, and NOT said to themselves, "Damn, what the hell is THAT?" is beginning with a closed mind. Google will also lead to links that indicate the Heflin photos where hoaxed. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When I was a kid, I remember a TV series about Air Force investigators and UFOs called "Project UFO", based on project blue book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVVADz0AfssI would have sworn there was a 1970's TV show called "Project Bluebook". I must just be remembering wrong as I can't imagine there having been two such similar TV series with such similar names at the same time. I seem to remember that as well, but 33 years ago is a little foggy to me. Google just turns up "project ufo", as far as tv shows go. Yep, it was "Project UFO", but I think most people called the show "Project Bluebook". IMDB - Project UFO |
|
Quoted:
Would love to hear it.. I'll write it down again before long except this time I won't delete it. Quick, very bare bones synopsis: Nighttime. Red orb emitting its own light (not reflected) exhibiting flight characteristics beyond the ability of any man-made device (unless someone invented an anti-gravity machine). Sudden, dead stop. Hover motionless. Shot straight up, 90 degree angle, at an incredible rate of speed. Gone. Total time of sighting roughly 30 seconds to a minute. I know my aircraft, military and civilian, well. I've spent eleven years trying to figure out what it was...and all I can come up with is what it wasn't: it wasn't anything we made. It wasn't "plasma" or "ball lightning." I don't know if it was under intelligent control or was some sort of robot or drone. Impossible to say based upon my observation. However, you'll have to take my word for it, the thing wasn't "natural." 
It was a SOMETHING. and that something isn't supposed to be able to do what it did. But it did. Most sightings are easily explainable. Others are rare flukes that take some detective work. Listen to me: the thing I saw WAS NOT MADE BY PEOPLE AND IT WASN'T A NATURAL PHENOMENON OF ANY TYPE WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH. Don't believe me or think I was mistaken? I don't blame you. But I know what I saw. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are more cameras in the hands of more people than at any time in the history of the world. Yet the amount of credible photographic evidence is what? Credible in what sense? Are you saying nobody has ever produced a decent photo of an unidentified object flying through the atmosphere? I would love to see an example. Google image search is your friend. I suggest you begin with the Heflin photos mentioned above. Seriously, anybody who has ever looked into this for more than 2 minutes, and NOT said to themselves, "Damn, what the hell is THAT?" is beginning with a closed mind. Google will also lead to links that indicate the Heflin photos where hoaxed. 100% true. What's more, Google will also lead one to the website of a disturbed man who is promoting the theory that John Lennon (of The Beatles) was murdered by Stephen King (horror author), not by Mark David Chapman, and that Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, with the aid of Time and Newsweek magazines (among other people and organizations, naturally), covered up the truth about the real murderer. We were discussing what you would need to do to see an example of a credible photo. If one wants to depart from the discussion on a tangent, however, the internet is always ready to aid and abet one's efforts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright cut all welfare reopen PBB
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this time without an agenda only 100% fact based
Why? It was a cover to streamline data output on UFOs and to provide mundane explanations for them when appropriate. It's time to cut 47% of existing .gov. Why would I ADD more? Sir, you got yourself a deal. 
|
|
Quoted:
Do you agree or disagree? I think it should be reopened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs Meh  ,.... Why not?
|
You don't want it re-opened, trust me... It's nasty... It's actually just a bunch of photos (nude) of the president and vice presidents wives back to about 1958. It was for presidential access only and was originally called operation blue balls but changed to blue book for security purposes...
|
|
No other object has been misidentified as a flying saucer more often than the planet Venus. Even the former leader of your United States of America James Earl Carter Jr thought he saw a UFO once, but it's been proven he only saw the planet Venus. Venus was at it's peak brilliance last night. You probably thought you saw something in the sky other than Venus, but I assure you, it was Venus. Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two dimensional retina images into the three dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing. Your scientific illiteracy makes me shudder and I wouldn't flaunt your ignorance by telling anyone that you saw anything last night other than the planet Venus. Because if you do, you're a dead man.
|
|
No. Waste of time and money. I'd rather fund actual science than a wild goose chase instituted by people who are perplexed by identifiable phenomenon. Even if 1% of UFO sightings are actually true and unexplainable, you've got to wade through the other 99% that are just planes, satellites, and made up BS. |