Discussing Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)

In summary: So there is no reason why we can't advance and find even more efficient and advanced ways to propel ourselves through the air. So in summation, I don't believe that UFOs are aliens.
  • #106
Originally posted by username
Is there any testimonies from non military scientists and has anybody sweared under oath that the things they claim to have seen are real ?

I just noticed that I misread your post. Yes. Plenty of affidavits and signed official reports do exist from many, many people. I thought that you meant a non-military scientist who has sworn under oath, such as in a court of law. I don’t know if you consider a signed official [legal] document acceptable or not. A number of the references listed include non-military scientists who have gone on the record.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Roswell

Whewww! I have looked at so much stuff on Roswell... I wanted to post this link since it provides at least one reputable source of information.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo32.pdf

The economic benefit to Roswell - which had a military base and a Xmas tree ornament factory and I think that's about it - is undeniable. Aliens have put Roswell on the map. It is obvious to nearly anyone that an entire industry now exists around the alien claim; especially in Roswell. I would tend to accept the government's explanations of this particular event and be done with it, however a few bothersome facts still keep my interest:

1).The government has and now admits to having consistently lied about this event. I watched the news conference a few years ago in which the official "case closed" evidence was presented by the government. The four foot aliens seen were, according to the now "truthful" government explanation, really six foot test flight dummies that had been dropped for high altitude tests. This claim of alien bodies is about the most important one for the government to dismiss; due to the number of the witnesses and people who claim direct knowledge of the "events" of 1947. Some sharp reporter was wise to this explanation and asked how this happened considering that the dummies weren't used until five years later [this claim is correct]. The government official stammered a bit and said he would look into it.

2). It appears that many key government docs related to this event were illegally destroyed. Please see the attached nsa.gov link.

3). in an interview about the document at the attached link [the GAO report] Congressman Schiff complains about a seeming unwillingness for certain government agencies to comply with his request for information about Roswell records. This motivates his appeal to the General Accounting Office and the related report.

4). Recently, an archeologist was asked to investigate the supposed UFO crash site. Anomalies were found in the soil compaction that supports "eyewitness" UFO claims. The scientist met with the Governor of New Mexico and presented his findings.

5). Although clearly not all credible, many witnesses to the events of 1947 have video taped their testimony "for the record". One key witness, a dying Colonel Corso, effectively gives death bed testimony in which he claims "I saw the [alien] bodies!".

6). If claims or events like this one are true, then one would expect that over time, as the people involved in these events grow older, more and more of these people would come forward and tell their stories. This is exactly what has happened.

7). Many explanation for this event demand that we assume that the worlds only nuclear strike force - the 509th at Roswell - was comprised of idiots who can't tell a UFO from a balloon that they themselves had launched.

Edit: Almost forgot one:
8). Military records do not support the current explanation offered by the government. For example, the offical report indicates that the balloon and radar reflector debris were shipped to Wright Patterson AFB, the same base to which the alien bodies were allegedly shipped, yet no materials handling bills or personnel records are found showing that any transport was ever made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Big Sur

The Big Sur Filming
Big Sur, California
September 15, 1964

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/bigsurdir.htm

Edit: I attempted to speak with Mr Mansmann a couple of times. Unfortunately he was too ill to speak and then passed away. I did speak with his wife twice and she was kind enough to have a short discussion with me on both occasions. According to Mrs. Mansmann, Mr. Mansmann maintained the truth of this story until his dying breath.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
Last edited:
  • #112
To: Commander, USAF Security Services

UFO reports from the Air Force.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
a note on Roswell:

I have recently noticed a slight error developing in the government’s explanation that I would like to correct:

Page 3 of the government response to Roswell states:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo39.pdf

“There is no dispute, however, that something happened near Roswell in July, 1947, since it was reported in a number of newspaper articles; the most famous of which were the July 8 and July 9 editions of the Roswell Daily Record. The July 8 edition reported “RAFF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region.”

On page one, paragraph one, sentence one of the GAO report, we find that it was the Air Force, and not the Roswell Daily Record and “newspapers” that initiated the UFO report:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo32.pdf

“On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) public information office in Roswell, New Mexico, reported the crash and recovery of a ‘flying disc’. Army Air Force personnel from the RAAF’s 509th Bomb Group were credited with the recovery.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

CIA web site: Users beware!
http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
Echelon

Why is https://www.physicsforums.com bringing up the CIA's website on my browser lol ?

EDIT: By the CIA's website I mean their homepage http://www.odci.gov/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
This guy is an idiot. If he thinks that telling the public what they want to hear is a good thing, then he has misunderstood science as a whole. If you state something, state it because scientifically you think the evidence points at it. Calling people skeptics doesn't help, and saying that science should pander to what people believe in doesn't help either. Simply on the account that you cannot pursue the study of the unknown on the basis of what people want to be told.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by FZ+
This guy is an idiot. If he thinks that telling the public what they want to hear is a good thing, then he has misunderstood science as a whole. If you state something, state it because scientifically you think the evidence points at it. Calling people skeptics doesn't help, and saying that science should pander to what people believe in doesn't help either. Simply on the account that you cannot pursue the study of the unknown on the basis of what people want to be told.

Hey FZ+, I wondered where my other favorite foil had gone
I think I agree with the premise of your objection, but also I think it is a little out of context. What is the message to the individual who "knows what they have seen", but who is told that they didn't see what they saw? And then what about those people who know, trust, and believe this person? My answer to his point and yours is this: Rather than suggest that a person who claims to have seen a 30 foot diameter UFO hovering their back yard really saw Venus, or some explanation that completely dismisses the claims of the supposed witness, I think the answer should be that either we have no explanation to account for his testimony, or simply that nothing scientific can be said. The typical response is imply that the person was an idiot, and then to give some ridiculous explanation that itself defies reason.

Do you argue that all phenomena is explained?
 
  • #120
Do you argue that all phenomena is explained?
No, neither do I argue that saying aliens are visiting is a always a better explanation than seeing venus. I am saying that it is understandable that there is doubt when we are dealing with eyewitness accounts from people who want to believe, or were in unusual mental conditions, or we see grainy, nasty images after tons of computer image enhancement.
 
  • #121
Originally posted by FZ+
No, neither do I argue that saying aliens are visiting is a always a better explanation than seeing venus.

Ivan says...I think the answer should be that either we have no explanation to account for his testimony, or simply that nothing scientific can be said.

FZ+ says...I am saying that it is understandable that there is doubt when we are dealing with eyewitness accounts from people who want to believe, or were in unusual mental conditions, or we see grainy, nasty images after tons of computer image enhancement.

It would seem that you haven't reviewed my posts. As a good example that the scenario that you present is not the state of the evidence, I will post this reference again for starters. Note that this comes directly from the National Security Agency:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo6.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
Nonbody seems to care that something/someone temporarily redirected www.physicsforums.com to the cia homepage after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts, I was quite shocked!

I have a picture of it but no trace routes etc :(

EDIT: Sorry not really on topic but wtf
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Originally posted by username
Nonbody seems to care that something/someone temporarily redirected www.physicsforums.com to the cia homepage after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts, I was quite shocked!

I have a picture of it but no trace routes etc :(

Username, you are joking. Don't play with my head; I have a wife for that!
 
  • #124
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

I know about echelon and all that but still ... how do they do it must have control of my isps dns servers or somthing ?
 
  • #125
Originally posted by username
after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts

Pronunciation: (doj'E), [key]
—adj., dodg•i•er, dodg•i•est.
1. inclined to dodge.
2. evasively tricky: a dodgy manner of dealing with people.
3. Chiefly Brit.risky; hazardous; chancy

Could you please indicate which option you mean. I hope you mean option 3:
 
  • #126
Originally posted by username
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

I know about echelon and all that but still ...

Taking your word for it...YIKES! I'm killing power now. I will be in touc
 
  • #127
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Pronunciation: (doj'E), [key]
—adj., dodg•i•er, dodg•i•est.
1. inclined to dodge.
2. evasively tricky: a dodgy manner of dealing with people.
3. Chiefly Brit.risky; hazardous; chancy

Could you please indicate which option you mean. I hope you mean option 3:
Three what else ;)
 
  • #128
Originally posted by username
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

I know about echelon and all that but still ... how do they do it must have control of my isps dns servers or somthing ?
Sometimes if a doc is linked incorrectly or a site with frames is written badly, you can get locked into a certain website and have to close your browser to get out of it. A lot of advertising sites do it on purpose as well.
 
  • #129
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

EDIT: I think physicsforums was cached by the CIA for having a link to their site/documents on it. I don't think my ISP in UK would put up with one of those mysterious 'black boxes'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sometimes if a doc is linked incorrectly or a site with frames is written badly, you can get locked into a certain website and have to close your browser to get out of it. A lot of advertising sites do it on purpose as well.

Now you tell me! I just burned everything in my file cabinets.
 
  • #131
Originally posted by username
I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

Would it make you feel better if I told you that for the first time since I installed this firewall a year ago, I have blocked at least 20 intrusion attempts in the last few days. My software says it's coming from San Jose California. Actually, I was about to report this. My theory is that it relates to a recent purchase I made; since the attacker is Walmart...so you can relax...I think
 
  • #132
I am behind a nat router with firewall so that's quite secure and no funny ports open that should not be etc.

Hmm maybe its time I got a virus/trojan scanner.

EDIT: of course I was joking about the virus scanner ... ;)
 
Last edited:
  • #133
Originally posted by username
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

EDIT: I think physicsforums was cached by the CIA for having a link to their site/documents on it. I don't think my ISP in UK would put up with one of those mysterious 'black boxes'.

Gosh username, I would think that it must have been a glitch. Of course, I have spent a lot of time at the CIA, FBI, and at the NSA gathering and reviewing docs lately. Perhaps we drew a little attention. That wouldn't really be so incredible. If someone spent ten hours on my website I might also take a look. Also, Bush has been trying to undo some of the Freedom of Information Act; due of course to national security concerns.:wink: Some people claim that information useful to terrorists can be found at these locations. Assuming that this is true, to monitor certain traffic at these sites would really seem quite prudent. If I was uncle Sam, I would probably use this claim as a sort of terrorist fly paper. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
It is interesting that I have reams of UFO information downloaded from the CIA years ago. A good portion of this information now seems to be missing at the new CIA link; like nearly all of it! I will have to boot-up the old Windows 3.11 machine and check on this.
 
  • #135
Originally posted by username
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

EDIT: I think physicsforums was cached by the CIA for having a link to their site/documents on it. I don't think my ISP in UK would put up with one of those mysterious 'black boxes'.

I think the CIA tagged you, not PF.[?]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
DOD News conference

DOD News conference; possibly nothing significant but a mention of another study.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug1997/t08051997_t0805asd.html



Q: On the UFO study that the CIA did over the weekend, or it was released or reported on over the weekend -- as Pentagon spokesman are you concerned about a report that says that the government willfully misled individuals to conceal programs?

A: I've read the CIA study, and I have read what they said about the Air Force. It's their characterization of what the Air Force said. I have not gone back and checked what the Air Force said at the time, so I'd prefer not to comment on what the study said. It is not the policy of Secretary Cohen or any of the people who work for him to mislead the public.

Q: Were you at all aware of any misleading of the public that was done by the Air Force prior?

A: I was not aware of that. I will say that one interesting aspect of the report was that for years, UFO people have been charging that we've covered up the fact that there really are UFOs, and the CIA study confirms, as has every other study done by the government, that we have no evidence of UFOs. We have no evidence of extraterrestrial visitors to this planet. The study goes on to say that one explanation for many of these sightings might have been airplanes that were being tested at the time.

Edit: Whoops!
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo6.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf

Q: Do you think that applies to any programs that might be tested now, or can you say categorically that the Department does not engage in that kind of public relations activity in terms of programs that are perhaps flying today?

A: First of all, we certainly have classified programs and we certainly have legitimate reasons for not disclosing some of the work we're doing, whether it's research and development or whether it's operations. I am not aware that we are putting out stories that misstate the truth about those programs. The distinction would be we just don't talk about the programs at all, so I certainly wouldn't talk about any of those programs today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
?

COMITA UFO REPORT.

http://www.earthradiotv.com/cometa.html

NOTE:This report has not been investigated; I just happened upon this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

The UFO report is expected to be submitted next month
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
UAP Report and the Standard Model
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Using the surrounding airflow to deduce the physics around UAP/UFO
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
967
Is the Washington Post compromised? (UFO story)
    • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
How to Watch a UFO: Tips for Identifying Unidentified Flying Objects
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
What is the propulsion behind UFOs?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
What Does UFO Mean? Exploring the Definition
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
30K
The physics behind true UFOs?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Velocity and the human experience
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
759
Where to find nonprofessional collaborators/science friends?
    • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
714

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top