British To Release UFO Files 327
Sean Stidman writes "Looks like the Brits are planning to release their secret files on many UFO sightings, including the famous Rendlesham Forest incident. These files should be ready for download by the end of this week, which I guess means by tomorrow. Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?"
Slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
If the
Re:Slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
What was it called again? Ghostbusters II?
Re:Slashdotting (Score:2)
So my theory is that regardless what will happen, there *will* be a dupe.
Release UFO info? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Release UFO info? (Score:2, Funny)
for gods sake mankind, it's only four lightyears!
Re:Release UFO info? (Score:2)
Nope, just Prince Phillip [everything2.com]
Re:Release UFO info? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Release UFO info? (Score:2)
Incidents (Score:2, Funny)
Supposed the be the British "area 51", says a lot 'bout UFO loons
Re:Rendlesham Forest Disclosure (Score:5, Funny)
release from British Freedom of Information Act excerpt: "According to witnesses ---- ------ ----- there ------- ---- --- are --- ---- ---- -- no ---- such ---- ---- -- thing ---- as ----- ----- -- UFOs.
This will never go through (Score:5, Funny)
Do you think for a second that the NSA and the Alien Studies Administration (a secret, classified offshoot of the CIA) will ever let this come to light and compromise the Roswell coverup and numerous other incidents throughout the decades that have helped the government implant thought-tracking devices in the heads of key international figures in exchange for allowing the aliens to abduct a fixed quota of non-desirable citizens each year? Fat fucking chance! They are still out there, in their black helicopters and UFO-saucers, aiming their laser rifles at all the fuckers who think they have them beat. I can block their radiation brain wave modifiers with a special metal I concocted in my basement.
I can't prolong this transmission because they are getting a fix on my location. Please, please, listen to me and believe me when I say that you need to steal this for the short time it is up before THEY realize it is there. Fight the power!
Re:This will never go through (Score:2, Insightful)
Britain doesn't have a constitution, so their citizens don't have constitutional rights. Eh, big boy?
Re:This will never go through (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This will never go through (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe the final say in these matters are actually made by the Law Lords. Of course, knowing the British constitution is a much harder task than knowing the American one. The constitution is considerably more flexible than the American one, meaning it is able to evolve more easily with time and be more representative of the day. Of course, with this flexibility comes the increased risk of abuse.
Re:This will never go through (Score:5, Interesting)
in britain, the queen owns my ass. though in practice because of our civil war (yes we had one, and guess what its was before yours too!) she cant actually do very much with it.
brain wave modifiers? hello?
Re:This will never go through (Score:3, Funny)
Oh? I woulda thought it was just because she's well over 70 now and wouldn't take all that much interest in it.
Re:This will never go through (Score:2)
Unless it's to use it as a reward for one of her son's secretaries.
Re:This will never go through (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. You did, and still do, have the right to do anything not prohibited by law. Our laws do not say "you are allowed to do U, V, and W," they say "you are not allowed to do X, Y and Z." (U, V, W, X, y and Z being things that you can or cannot do.) I don't need a law to say I can post on slashdot (for example) - the fact that no law says I can't means I can. (And, for the pedants in the audience, I mean in general, I know there are some things the law says I can't say - incitement to racial harted is an offence, as is saying I could get you illegal drugs [counts as intent to supply, iirc] - to give two examples.)
MOD: +1 Correct. (Score:2)
Brits Seize Humour Glands! (Score:2)
Re:This will never go through (Score:2)
Re:This will never go through (Score:2)
The Constitution is a piece of paper that basically says US citizens have certain rights. It had to be fought for.
What about God given rights? Your rights as a human being? I don't need a bunch of old geezers to tell me what I should be free to do.
I guess the Beastie Boys were right. You gotta fight... for your right... to paaaaaaaarrtttayy!
only if (Score:5, Funny)
only if it's an x-fileserver.
Nice touch from the Brits (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nice touch from the Brits (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:2)
Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the truth is... (Score:5, Funny)
- This side of the river is intentionally left bank.
Re:Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! (Score:2)
Alien Haiku (Score:4, Funny)
taking all the hot women.
Slashdotters are greived.
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:3, Funny)
More likely, most don't even notice the difference (at least not the editors w. the repeating stories)
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:3, Funny)
The rule is 'I' before 'E',
Except after 'C'.
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:2)
Except when sounded like "A" as in neighbor and reign.
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:2, Interesting)
The rule is 'I' before 'E',
Except after 'C'.
Except when sounded like "A" as in neighbor and reign.
Actually, it does fail when you throw "weird" at it. E before I, and no C, or A. So.. uh.. nerr-nerr-ner-nerr-nerr
Unless of course I missed another part of it which covers that case. In which event, this post is a forgery. By aliens. Big green ones, with bug-eyes, 'n everything.
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:3, Funny)
"Slashdotters barely notice, as the jpegs of said women remain in place." ?
After all, most of you wouldn't ever notice if all the hot women in the world actually didn't exist. As a matter of fact, to them, you don't...
Joking.
Re:Alien Haiku (Score:3, Funny)
Other sites for Rendlesham UFO Info (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.io.com/~nelson/rendlesham.htm [io.com]
http://www.debunker.com/texts/RidpathRendlesham1.
Tape Transcript: http://www.skiesare.demon.co.uk/bentwatr.htm [demon.co.uk]
Yaaaay!!! (Score:2)
Interested but skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
UFO != Alien Life (Score:5, Insightful)
A UFO is exactly that... an Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean it's from another planet, it just means there was an object in the air, and some bystander with a fuzzy camcorder at best couldn't work out what it was.
Re:UFO != Alien Life (Score:3, Funny)
Re:UFO != Alien Life (Score:2)
Yeah, that thought grossed me out too.
Re:UFO != Alien Life (Score:2)
Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, I think it's a bit dismissive in this case to call it "just some object in the air", like it could be a weather balloon or swamp gas or something. This is an object that moves and behaves like no known terrestrial phenomenon.
What do you think it could be? Ball lightning? Its movements seem too deliberate. Secret American or Russian aircraft with magnetic/gravitic propulsion and stealth tech? About as hard to swallow as aliens.
I'm not saying OMG! Aliens!
Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:2)
Halt: We just crossed the creek.
"Creek" isn't a term applied to British geography.
Plus, the talk of deflection needles doesn't quite ring true.
Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:2)
Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. [dabsol.co.uk] In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down. I shall quote it here:
Do you see what I'm getting at? The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath". It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy." It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
It can account for the presence of radiation, the depressions on the ground, and the tree markings, but it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions." Is it just a coincidence that the radiation levels from cosmic rays and whatnot are measurably strongest in the depressions and centre of the 'landing zone', and the side of the tree facing it? Perhaps. Unlikely though.
It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)
So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'. This is NOT the Scientific Method.
Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]
What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis
This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions (that is, after all, part of the scientific method). However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything* under non-ideal conditions are about as closely related to reality as a typical "inspired by true events" TV-movie. This is the bane of police officers taking witness statements from accident scenes; it also makes it reasonable to claim that any given interpretation in the memo was not a correct one, especially given that known phenomena almost certainly accounted for at least some of the items described.
This feeds back into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule of thumb. If observations appear to contradict all expectations, and the observations are open to question, then it is fair to assert that the observations are likely to be at least partly mistaken. Note that this does not assert ironclad proof; only likelihood.
If you want guesses as to the other points you raise, sure, I'll give them; but without having been there that night, they're so much hot air.
Blind conjectures as follows:
The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath".
Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this quite nicely. Most of the light showing at the top, some glow at the bottom, and enough of a glow at the sides to give the impression of shininess. I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion; colour sense is royally screwed up in low-light conditions (light dim enough to be perceived as monochrome often looks pale blue or green). Without actually taking a look at this lighthouse, I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red.
It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy."
A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago. This is described in the link I cited. Or it could just as easily have been some other trigger; animal noise needn't be constant.
It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.
it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions."
That one's easy. Trees aren't radioactive. Any excess background was probably from rocks (my father had a few thorite samples at one point; drove a radiation counter nuts). Point the counter at a tree, and the tree blocks half of the background. Move so that you no longer have line of site to wherever the rocks in question are, or even move farther from the deposit, and you get a reduced count. Dirt will also do a decent job of blocking beta rays, as long as it's not itself radioactive.
It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)
You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.
I have no explanation for the distant lights observed on the horizon, but am confident that one of the many usual glowing-moving-light explanations applies.
So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'.
Per my comments above, I think that taking all of the observations at face value would be even less accurate, especially given the evidence offered that _some_ of them (the disturbance caused by the meteor and the lighthouse's pulsing light) are very likely to not be the result of spacecraft activity (as they were classified in the report). The scientific method includes acknowledging noisy data as such.
Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO (Score:2)
"This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions"
So, we can conveniently disregard ALL UFO sightings until one occurs in a laboratory? This is the essence of that "logical trickery" article I posted. Nothing is good enough for the UFO disbelievers, they always raise the bar for what is acceptable and believable when any new evidence rolls in.
"However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything*..."
This isn't a chance eyewitness account, like a single bystander witnessing a car crash, and asked to recall his memory later. This is several people investigating something, and RECORDING their impressions AS they see them.
"Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this [create a metallic appearance] quite nicely. [...] I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion"
Pure speculation deliberately concocted to make the observational evidence match better with the proposed hypothesis. Sorry.
"I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red."
Oh.. I thought the lighthouse light WAS red, but you're quite right, it doesn't say that anywhere. Thanks for strengthening my argument
"A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago."
The meteor timing doesn't make any sense to me. Your article mentions the meteor passed around 3am. Halt mentions in the transcript it is 1:48am when he notes the animal noises. Wasn't the meteor supposed to be verified as what they saw in the first place? How can this be if it happened later? Either way, there is nothing to support that the meteor passed WHEN the animals started acting up, and I don't believe the animals would collectively just wait a while before reacting.
It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."
Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.
They were LOOKING for it. I'm sorry but I can't see them losing such a bright light behind some trees for an hour, and it suddenly reappearing. They said it lit the whole forest. Passing in front of a tree isn't going to suddenly make it impossible to find again.
I wouldn't presume to argue the finer points of radioactivity with you, I'll take your word on the tree thing... however, I notice you ONLY mentioned the tree. What about the readings which peaked in the ground depressions?
You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.
I left out the part about the red light cuz I thought that was easily explained by the lighthouse, sorry. People waving flashlights about in the woods do not appear to be red, blue, green lights in the sky moving rapidly with angular movements, or elliptical objects in the sky (under a 8-12x zoom, too), or an object in the sky that shines down a beam of light once in a while. And campfires do not pulse, they flicker. Pulse is a word used to describe something with a regular beat. You could argue they might've used poor word choice, but again, that would be twisting the observational evidence to fit better with the hypothesis.
Only half the story... (Score:2)
Re:UFO != Alien Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Extraterrestrial life could visit the Earth without there being some big conspiracy, you know. In fact any reasonable, open-minded mathematical analysis actually predicts it. The fact that we should, but haven't seen any aliens yet is known as Fermi's Paradox.
The people who refuse to acknowledge facts and evidence are actually on YOUR side. Please read this. [dabsol.co.uk] It covers all the reasons why scientists have stubbornly refused to admit there is an enormous body of verified (ie, visual reports which match radar evidence) observational evidence to suggest that we have been visited by craft that are 1) physically solid, 2) under intelligent control, and 3) in possession of propulsion technology far beyond human understanding.
I particularly like this piece:
No offense, but I think you "aliens are impossible" types are as close minded as the "flat earthers" and "fake moon landing" types.. no matter what volume of evidence you are shown, it's never good enough. The only difference between you and "conspiracy nuts" is that you have the backing of a bunch of scientists who don't want to admit how stubborn and blind they've been.
Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Bombardment of ads for the show.
2. Ads for freedomofinfo.org (checkout the whois)
3. The Abduction Diaries ???
4. A Geraldo style show about Roswell
5. And now, paying off the Brits to unleash their hype^H^H^H^Hinfo.
It all seems pretty expensive to me.
Re:Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" (Score:2)
according to unnamed sources (Score:2, Funny)
- footage of brightly coloured aliens with CRT screens embedded in abdominal area
- chemical analysis of 'moon' wenslydale
- a police box
Humorous anecdote... (Score:5, Funny)
Aliens *did* land in Britain... (Score:5, Funny)
From all reports (Score:2)
Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... (Score:2)
Deep fried Mars Bars; haggis (which really IS a sheep stomach filled with horrible bits of sheep and not, as I delight in telling tourists, a small fluffy animal); porridge with salt and Tunnock's Teacakes.
Beam me up, Scotty. And if you insist on bringing the haggis, make sure it's already out of the sheep this time!
-Mark
Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... (Score:2)
Analysis of the /. effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally this is NOT not off-topic :) Here's an analysis of the slashdot effect [openchallenge.org]. In the UFO files case, I believe the effect will be tens of times powerful in terms of distinct visitors than the case I analyzed and hundreds of times stronger in sense of data transferred, as they are probably going to serve fat media. I believe they will go down.
Most of the files won't be released yet. (Score:3, Informative)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): Thirty-eight files are held at the Public Record Office for release under the terms of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, the 30-year rule applying:
AIR 2/18564 & 18565 UFO Reports--due for release 2002.
AIR 20/12067, 12297 to 12306 Unidentified flying objects-due for release 2001.
AIR 20/12399 to 12411 UFO reports--due for release 2003.
AIR 20/12544 to 12555 UFO reports--due for release 2004.
BJ 5/311 UFO: Met aspects--due for release 2001
Four files are held by the MoD records management branch pending acceptance and transfer to the PRO, PRO references and transfer arrangements awaiting confirmation:
AF/7463/72 UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18831 for release in 2003.
AF/7464/72 UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18872 for release in 2004.
AF/7464/72 Pt. II UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18873 for release in 2005.
AF/7464/72 Pt. III UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18874 for release in 2006.
In the absence of a thematic index of files stored in MoD's archives the identification of files has, of necessity, been limited to those created by the Air Staff Secretariat and predecessor branches. The following files have been identified and are earmarked for review by MoD at future dates, at which point they will be assessed for their suitability for preservation at the PRO. It is possible that some files created by other Headquarters divisions or establishments may contain papers on this topic. These could only be identified at disproportionate cost:
AF/S4f(A)/422--one file--UFOs, BBC Radio Oxford Programme.
AF/S4f(Air) U/506--one file--Statistical Analyses of UFOs.
AF/3459/75--one file--UFOs: Policy and Policy statements--1970.
AF/584 to 595--12 files--UFO reports.
AF/596 to 602--seven files--UFO reports.
AF/447--one file--UFO reports.
AF/607 & 608--two files--UFO reports.
AF/610 to 613--four files--UFO reports.
AF/616 to 619--four files--UFO reports.
AF/419--one file--BBC 2, Man Alive Programme: UFOs.
17 Dec 1998 : Column WA178
D/DS8/75/2/1--six parts--UFO reports, correspondence.
D/DS9/75/2/2--12 parts--UFO correspondence.
D/DS8/75/2/3--six parts--UFO reports, edited copies.
D/DS8/75/2/4--three parts--UFO reports.
D/DS8/75/2/5--two parts--UFO reports.
D/DS8/75/3--one part--UFO, Parliamentary Correspondence.
D/DS8/75/6--one part--UFO, TV discussion.
D/DS8/75/7--one part--UFO, satellite debris.
D/DS8/10/209--seven parts--UFO briefs, reports and correspondence.
D/DS8/10/209/1--three parts--general briefs, reports, UFO correspondence
This is *so* pathetic (Score:2)
What a pile of self-deluding baloney!
Read the transcript. None of those guys knew how to use their gear, they couldn't even find enough flashlights, they didn't know the territory. I wouldn't trust those guys to tell me how many buttons were on their shirtfronts.
Stuff hovering over Mexico City? Maybe.
Weird sh*t at Roswell (even beyond it's being a military test site)? Yes, something seriously hinky was going on.
Pilots saying that there's a lot in the sky that looks UFO-ish to them? I'm not in a position to judge.
But this thing? Yeah, right. I'll trade ya my secret decoder ring for your deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and then we'll go investigate.
Posting while I eat, like a true obsessive
Rustin
Re:This is *so* pathetic (Score:2)
I have fantasies of someday living in a land where all children are raised to understand things like parallax, and shifting perceived color, and basic forest skills. Clearly that land will not be most of America anytime soon.
Re:This is *so* pathetic (Score:2)
Well, no. Most Americans have to get in their cars and drive for more than an hour to get to anything remotely resembling a forest. Unfortunately, this is also true of a lot of the world. It's no surprise that the average 21st century person has no idea how to behave or what to expect in a forest. Most people only read about them at best.
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
We dont actually need these docs (Score:3, Interesting)
NUFORC [nuforc.org] has many reports of high strangeness and high quality.
UFOSkeptic [ufoskeptic.org] a must read for all "science types", written by Dr. Bernard Haisch.
Science Logic and the UFO debate [archive.org]. Once you read this, you will have no doubts left.
And finally, all the arguments of the skeptics were completely demolised single handedly by a man called Brian Zeiler [google.com] on USENET circa 1996. Essential reading, if you have the patience.
Essentially, the arguments about this subject are over. The interesting discussion is centered around what is to be done about this problem... if anything.
Re:We dont actually need these docs (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid I'm not terribly impressed with this site. After reading through these documents, it became clear that Dr. Haisch has a habit of jumping to the most favourable possible conclusion given incomplete evidence (as opposed to saying "the evidence is incomplete; here are the options and we don't know which is true").
The most thought-provoking case of this was his discussion of Fermi's Paradox. The paradox is that observations to date suggest that there are a very large number of worlds in the galaxy hospitable to intelligent water-based life, and yet we see no evidence of it and none of it has provably come to visit. Dr. Haisch notes that this either means that colonizing civilizations don't last long, or that aliens _do_ come to visit, and immediately concludes the latter. If anything, the lack of strong evidence of visitation or beacons or the like suggests that the former case is the more probable.
As a side note, the implications of this chain of reasoning are fascinating to consider. Either civilizations almost inevitably eradicate themselves, or they almost inevitably become permanently introverted, or they almost inevitably move somewhere else (either a virtual world, a la "Calculating God", or another universe (a la the Sublimed Elders from the "Culture" novels). Another option is that even under favourable conditions, sapient life, or perhaps complex life of any form, is extremely rare. Yet another option is that there is some other factor affecting habitability of worlds that we haven't found yet that eliminates most from consideration.
Whatever the case, there is by no means convincing evidence for the conclusion that aliens must be visiting us. Yet, the whole site is filled with jumps of logic like that.
I knew it (Score:2, Funny)
Bored? Alien invasion in your own home town! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then drive around following them, pointing "What's THAT?!!".
Great fun.
coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Preparation for the invasion? Too much time on our hands?
Probably the last.
Come On People... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come On People... (Score:2)
Re:Come On People... (Score:2)
Change 'Faster than light' to 'trans-oceanic' and 'aliens' to 'British' and you've pretty much got the British Colonial period.
Re:Come On People... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come On People... (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't the half of it. There was a very good article on Scientific American some time ago that appears to have been taken down(Google cache) [216.239.39.100]. It was entitled "Where Are They?" by Ian Crawford, and it addressed some possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox (Basically stated, its: if there are aliens, why haven't we been able to detect them?) Any civilization with suffient will and technology could colonize the entire galaxy in a cosmic blink of an eye, so why haven't we seen them yet? Quite an interesting read.
How about this. (Score:2)
Much more likely then some random alien race discovering our lonely planet and also explains the humanoid shapes.
Hessdalen (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you are not info spooky lights, it is still an interesting project from a technical perspective.
I wonder what happens (Score:4, Funny)
cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Link url to blackvault, the largest UFO site on the web, among other things contains thousands of US freedom of information act documents, and yes, there's a boatload of redacted out content, as in "nothing to see here, we just blacked this out because... uhhh... ya see.. I mean..., well because we can!" This site is BIG, well done, and thorough, I recommend it to serious researchers and enthusiasts AND skeptics.
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/
the Black Vault [bvalphaserver.com]
The web master started this site I *think* when he was 16, I've been visiting off and on for years.
Here's my disclaimer. Some of ya'all might have noted my frequent reference to "government" as more or less a pack of liars. One of the two primary reasons (initially that is) I have held this position most of my life is because of "ufos". when I was a teenager some friends and I saw one very close up, very close. Nope, no drugs or booze involved to dispel any trolling. It was not swamp gas, nmoon on a ducks back, some helicopter, or any other explanation other than -no explanation. Some seriously advanced flying "something'. To describe it , it was a large glowing oval shaped whatever, it flew down the block just above the houses, stopped over a house closeby, hung out, then slowly went down the block, toward the end it started to climb then WHAM took off like mach bignumber and was gone. Tell ya whut you just do NOT forget things like this. So, I start reading about UFOs,and I notice the government more or less says they don't exist except as various lame reasons. Well, too bad, 'cuz I know this is a whopper. Score one for destroying a yong man's trust in government, already shaken by the kennedy whack, then oswalds rubout which was obvious to anyone with an iq above 50 as "eliminating some embarassing evidence".
government=liars when it comes to certain things. This is IMO of course, but in the decades since I have seen no evidence to persuade me otherwise, in fact,I'd say the evidence FOR ufo's as being something "other" is better than for "honesty in government".
Exactly what they are, no idea, demons to secret nazi craft, time travellers to interstellar visitors, angels to secret gov blackops-no idea, none. I tend to more think the correct answer is "all of the above".
Re:cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it's none of the above and YOU'RE the liar. I trust elected officials with college educations and clean background checks with top level security clearance a lot more than 16 year old kids running websites.
No offense, maybe you are right, maybe they are right, maybe I am wrong. I know it doesn't matter since you can't prove any of it. When you can I'll eat my words.
Re:cool (Score:2)
It's really just dismally hard to even describe with text what seeing a UFO does to you, I've tried several times and failed. It is in the classical sense "awe"some, it's just overwhelming. I distinctly remember all the hairs on my neck going up, it was that shocking and that much a sense of amazement and wonder. Imagine a split second where you experience every possible emotion, it's something like that.
It is OK for you to be skeptical, this is your right. If you ever see one, you'll change your mind. That's about it. In a way-this is funny but true-here's an analogy. It's not perfect but it's good enough. Seing a UFO then trying to describe it,is like trying to explain sex to a virgin, no amount of words are the same as the experience.
Technology (Score:3, Funny)
Of course. They all run on advanced alien technology.
an addition to their files (Score:3, Funny)
Of course... (Score:2)
NORAD investigating contrails?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the one listed in... (Score:5, Interesting)
... the documentary book entitled The Philadelphia Experiment?
No, I'm not talking about the movie (well I guess I am sort of), but this was a documentary on possible US Navy research into invisibility, just as in the movie.
Most of the book is about that (I think; I haven't read it all yet), but in line with the "government conspiracy" angle there was a very interesting UFO sighting and subsequent follow-on (or is that redundant?) .
I might post it here tonight when I get back home if anyone's interested; it's about 2 pages, which from a typical novel is probably little enough for fair use.
(Then again, maybe it's online somewhere...)
Re:What about the one listed in... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I guess "Score 4, Interesting" means that someone's interested... just save some mod points for this post, OK? ;)
This is taken from "The Philadelphia Experiment", Charles Berlitz and William Moore, pp173-7. The story is told in the book as being one- and two-levels removed, so there are a lot of extra names in here which I'm snipping. The gist of the actual UFO story is as follows...
(It looks like this is reported elsewhere online, but not in this level of detail.)
Late in the evening on Tuesday October 7, 1975, Robert Suffern, a twenty-seven-year-old carpenter from rural Bracebridge, Ontario, received a call from his sister, who lives down the road, asking him to investigate a strange glow that seemed to be coming from a nearby barn. Suffern drove to the barn, took a quick look around, and not seeing anything out of the ordinary, was proceeding to his sister's house when he was startled to see a darkened saucer-shaped object about 12 to 14 feet in diameter squatting on the gravelled road directly ahead of him.
`I was scared,' he later recounted to a Toronto Sun reporter. `It was right there in front of me with no lights and no signs of life.' His car hadn't quite come to a full stop, he said, when the object `went straight up in the air and out of sight.'
According to Suffern's story, he had no sooner managed to turn his car around and head for home when a strange, 4-foot-tall humanlike creature with `very wide shoulders which were out of proportion to his body' and wearing a silver-grey suit and a globe-type helmet walked out into the road right in front of his car. Suffern slammed on the brakes, skidding on the loose gravel, and came within inches of colliding with the creature, who promptly dodged out of the way, ran to the side of the road, jumped a fence, and disappeared into a field. According to the account Suffern gave to the Sun reporter, when the figure `got to the fence, he put his hands on a post and went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was weightless.'
Badly shaken by this encounter, Suffern finally succeeded in driving home, only to discover when he looked out the window of his house that the UFO had returned, this time flying slowly close over the road. At that moment, it flew around an electric pole and again disappeared, seemingly going straight up into the night sky.
Neither relatives, close friends, nor the reporters, investigators, and plain curious who descended on his farmhouse over the next several weeks could dislodge him from his story.
`I know what I saw,' he said. `But I don't care if I ever see that creature again.'
Of course, if the story ended at this point, it would be nothing more than another addition to an every growing list of mysterious and difficult-to-verify close-encounter cases in recent years. But there was more...
On December 12, 1975, after the Sufferns were beginning to feel some semblance of order again (their farm was literally swamped for weeks by roving bands of curiosity seekers) three men were delivered to their home in an Ontario Provincial Police cruiser. The appointment had been pre-arranged in November. These officials arrived in full uniform, bearing impressive credentials and representing themselves as the TOP BRASS from the Canadian Forces in Ottawa, the United States Air Force, Pentagon, and from the Office of Naval Intelligence. Suffern, previously perturbed about the nature of his UFO encounter, claimed that ALL his questions were answered POINT BLANK and with NO HESITATIONS by these three helpful gentlemen. They `opened the books' to him and gave him the answers to the WHERE FROM, the What and the Why. They implied that the U.S. and Canadian governments have known all about UFOs since 1943 and have in fact been cooperating with the ALIENS in some unknown capacity since then!
As if this wasn't enough to swallow in one gulp, the military `know-it-alls' threw us yet another curve when they made a formal APOLOGY [to Suffern] for the unfortunate incident of Oct. 7. They claimed it was a MISTAKE!! To which Suffern immediately thought out loud that it must have been a supersecret military craft. No, they claimed. It was a malfunction in the saucer that brought the craft down, complete with aliens, on his property. Mrs Suffern found all this quite impossible to accept, but when she quizzed them, the officers actually came up with the exact time of the landing - to the minute - a small detail that only the Sufferns knew and had not conveyed to anyone. They have had three different UFO sightings over their property, only the last of which they reported, and again the times and dates were duly related to them by the knowledgeable trio. The enlightened agents, carrying a battery of books and data (complete with gun camera photos of UFO), again emphasized that the landing was an ACCIDENT and should not have occurred...
... Further along we learned that the military still refer to UFO occupants as `humanoids'. Contact was apparently made in 1943 (reputedly through an accident which occurred during a U.S. Naval experiment regarding radar invisibility) and now our forces are aware of the aliens' movements on this planet...
... Suffern adamantly insisted that all his questions about the craft and the occupant were answered `to his satisfaction' despite the fact that (many) civilian investigators have visited him and offered alternate hypotheses to clear up the mystery for him. Many came close but none answered him with the same `degree of accuracy'...
The critical key to Suffern's encounter is the fact that he had a `near miss' car situation with a physical entity, dressed in a one-piece silver suit and short in stature. If contact indeed had taken place then there could have been serious repercussions, had he actually run the being down. This could account for the military's intervention and unusual frankness...
The Sufferns remained firm in their statement that all three military personnel answered all their questions with uncanny precision and immediately. Suffern himself claims that he knows the identities of these three men and can prove that they were not imposters. He also denies he is bound by the Canadian Secrets Act and claims that his only motive for keeping the details secret is for the `moral reason' of simply wanting to keep his part of the bargain by complying with the `government's wishes' in this matter.
So, folks, what do you make of that?
ho hum (Score:2, Funny)
[b]2010[/b]: The Aliens from outer space have been beaten. The few remaining aliens jump in their spaceships and take off, vowing never to return. All of humanity rejoices over their united victory.
[b]2011[/b]: Most of humanity returns to their petty nature, choosing to bicker and find problems with those who look different, act different, etc. Humans fight humans again and the whole ball of dung starts rolling again.
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, London is covered in fog all the time, it never gets hot in the UK, and Sherlock Holmes is close to catching Jack the Ripper.
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:5, Informative)
It's used in this sort of context to mean blanked out or removed - something they don't want to release (this is the irony in most freedom of information legislation - the government are allowed to redact whatever they want).
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:4, Informative)
The word means 'to put into literary or publishable form', re-edit, new edition.
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, two out of three isn't bad
*ducks*
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:2)
Now does anyone have any gumbands to bind my biros?
Ta!
Re:Does anyone think... (Score:4, Informative)
First, it would be "redacted", not "redacted out".
Second, "to redact" is a verb that is used regularly in certain specialized areas--often in law, for example. Literally, it means to "edit". In practice, it usually refers to the censorship of private documents for release to the public. It is not a Britishism.
Re:Nope, they won't handle it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:obligatory X-files reference (Score:4, Funny)
Drop the stereotype and walk away slowly, with your hands behind your head!
Andyboy_H
Re:Slashdot goes full bore on Thanksgiving! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Britain == land of the free. (Score:3, Insightful)
Me-thinks you need to read up a lot more on the state of freedom in these countries...