Real Mass UFO Sightings

[Singularitarian]

We had a close encounter a great many years ago in our town. Over several residents of the local village reported seeing objects in the sky. So to this day, being one of the witnesses, i am an avid believer that something is at least strange going on, and that the observations of these strange objects which defy all logic must be taken seriously, and to entice some interest, i have collected some [undeniably] true events recorded on ITN. These cases are documented and reported, with usually tens of the dozen of witnesses, and, on the odd occasion, one of them is lucky enough to have a cam-corder.


Ufo Amazing coverage over short hours and long distances: Real footage reported by the News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYRyuL4Z5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z49yJtx8E14

In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y

More news reports, no shotage of a UFO, but strange occurances and observations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJpvzoh1Iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4CgL79H59A

[quarky]

I'm convinced.

[Questioninggeller]

That's nothing. What about the mass sighting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Germany?

vL7FcvEydqg


Or what about over Russia in 1957?
b1PW596ZlGk

[kittynh]

The point should be that "strange' covers a lot.

Let's go at it from another angle. Find out where the "strange" is coming from.

The leap from "that's strange" to "that's paranormal" is HUGE. It's like "I see a rainbow, and the cause is an invisible unicorn with a paintbrush".

[Singularitarian]

By definition, the paranormal does not conform to conventional expectations of the natural - UFO's act, unnaturally.

[Vortigern99]

Debris from derelict satellites falling to earth, search lights coming up through the clouds, jets flying in formation at night, and meteorites...

... would be my initial hypothesis for each of the phenomena seen in the vids linked in the OP. Even if these are arguable, there are a number of probable or possible explanations to consider and reject, before concluding that extraterrestrials are somehow involved.

Video of man-made trash falling from orbit, sparkling prettily in the sun on the way down, to the bewilderment of far-off crowds, makes for good viewing fun, but it's hardly evidence of alien intelligence or visitation.


We had a close encounter a great many years ago in our town. Over several residents of the local village reported seeing objects in the sky. So to this day, being one of the witnesses, i am an avid believer that something is at least strange going on, and that the observations of these strange objects which defy all logic must be taken seriously, and to entice some interest, i have collected some [undeniably] true events recorded on ITN. These cases are documented and reported, with usually tens of the dozen of witnesses, and, on the odd occasion, one of them is lucky enough to have a cam-corder.


Ufo Amazing coverage over short hours and long distances: Real footage reported by the News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYRyuL4Z5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z49yJtx8E14

In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y

More news reports, no shotage of a UFO, but strange occurances and observations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJpvzoh1Iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4CgL79H59A

[Singularitarian]

Debris from derelict satellites falling to earth, search lights coming up through the clouds, jets flying in formation at night, and meteorites...

... would be my initial hypothesis for each of the phenomena seen in the vids linked in the OP. Even if these are arguable, there are a number of probable or possible explanations to consider and reject, before concluding that extraterrestrials are somehow involved.

Video of man-made trash falling from orbit, sparkling prettily in the sun on the way down, to the bewilderment of far-off crowds, makes for good viewing fun, but it's hardly evidence of alien intelligence or visitation.


Naturally... conventional wisdom. Nothing more or less, and even i could have speculated the above; however, note i did not. I can argue point blank every case you have given, whether that be:

Debris from derelict satellites falling to earth, search lights coming up through the clouds, jets flying in formation at night, and yes, you have it, meteorites...

Video 3 does not fit the bill for any rogue meteor. Nor can so many satilites (i think dozens of them are in the sky) could even be rationally accepted. This certainly is not flashlights either ''emerging'' beyond the skyline, or from the clouds... since the day is as visible as a crisp winter morning. And if its jets... then the military intelligence would have conceded it was them, but obviously, it was not.

So i have easily crushed this conventional wisdom.

[Singularitarian]

Oh, and ps. Note its not debris either. Debris does not act like that when falling towards the earth.

[arthwollipot]

And if its jets... then the military intelligence would have conceded it was them, but obviously, it was not.Yes, because the military intelligence always does that.

[Stray Cat]

In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y
Why would balloons be disturbing?

Singularitarian: There is nothing in these video that is conclusive of anything other than that on occasion, more than one person can allow their imagination to run away with them.

Besides, just because a lot of people are looking at a mass balloon release, doesn't mean they are all similarly fooled into thinking they are UFO's as the original report suggested. The reason I mention the original report os that subsequently, these mass balloon releases have been positively identified as such.

In the case of the IR night vision shot from Iraq.
Of course it's light shining upwards, it is coming directly from out of the most lit area in the shot and is an optical effect of the IR night vision equipment.

"And finally"
Sometimes people see and film things that can not be identified, accept it, don't build a religion around it. Just because an object can not be identified from the evidence provided doesn't mean it could not be identified if that evidence were clearer. Which is why UFO footage is always so fuzzy, it's that line between ambiguity of image and personal belief that melds together so well to produce the UFO phenomenon.
Hopefully with the advent of more affordable Hi Def camcorders and more effective zoom and image stabilisation, we will see less of this type of ambiguity... but somehow, I can also predict the increase in technology will provide us with a whole different set of 'anomalies' much like the sudden appearance of 'Orbs' with the introduction of compact digital cameras.

[JFrankA]

Naturally... conventional wisdom. Nothing more or less, and even i could have speculated the above; however, note i did not. I can argue point blank every case you have given, whether that be:

Debris from derelict satellites falling to earth, search lights coming up through the clouds, jets flying in formation at night, and yes, you have it, meteorites...

Video 3 does not fit the bill for any rogue meteor. Nor can so many satilites (i think dozens of them are in the sky) could even be rationally accepted. This certainly is not flashlights either ''emerging'' beyond the skyline, or from the clouds... since the day is as visible as a crisp winter morning. And if its jets... then the military intelligence would have conceded it was them, but obviously, it was not.

So i have easily crushed this conventional wisdom.

No, not at all. All you've done is dismiss a possibility without even trying. That's not "crushing". That's ignoring. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it's an absurd explanation.

Also, let's say you're right. It IS a UFO. Where did they go? Where did they land? Why haven't we heard about them? Where are the news reports as to where they landed? I bet that there would news people all over the landing site....

And please, please, please don't say "government cover-up".

[JFrankA]

Oh, and ps. Note its not debris either. Debris does not act like that when falling towards the earth.

How do they act?????? They float or something???? :D

[Ragnarok]

Maybe the displays are only meant to jolt our imagination, and not to give us conclusive proof?

99% of the human race are too busy paying the bills and surviving, to spend much time considering the possibility of extraterrestrial life-forms, and the impact they would have.

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYRyuL4Z5I


1=Crashing sattelite.
2=A series of flares.
3= (space shot) I see no UFO
4=Could be baloons, flares, meteorites, sattelite debris.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z49yJtx8E14


Night shots: These are night-vision shots, that is, they are taken with IR sensitive equipment. The world looks quite different in IR. I can see a lot of possibilities, especially since they are taken in a war zone.

Day shot: I see no UFO. There is a helicopter, but ....


In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y



Most of the footage is useless, because of lack of scale reference. The rest is just, ... light spots. Could be lots of things.



More news reports, no shotage of a UFO, but strange occurances and observations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJpvzoh1Iw



Uhh? A broken wind turbine? They DO break, on occasion, ya know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4CgL79H59A

Where is the UFO?

Hans

[Ragnarok]

I'm fairly sure I have read reports of pilots or radar operators seeing aerial objects make 90 degree turns. If these are true, what would your explanations for that be?

[Fishstick]

Without having access to flash and thus youtube, but I have a sneakin' suspicion the third (in-space) video is from the STS-48 'sighting' which has been debunked multiple times:
There are more than 50 sources of ice on the shuttle, plus a steady source of debris such as insulation flakes from inside the payload bay. This includes 38 primary RCS jets and 6 vernier jets (which burn the hypergolic [self-igniting] propellants of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine), an air dump line, a waste water dump line, a supply water dump line, two fuel cell purge lines (the hydrogen one is always leaking water), two flash evaporators, a water spray boiler, and so forth. No surprise, then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight. The particles usually (not always) spin, and depending on the axis of spin they may or may not flash, and depending on the speed of spin their flicker may or may not be picked up by the camera CCD scanner.

The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.

When small, drifting debris particles are hit by this RCS plume they are violently accelerated away from the jet. This is what is seen in the infamous "Case 2" sequence, where a flash (the jet firing) is immediately followed by all nearby particles being pushed away from the jet, followed shortly later by a fast moving object (evidently RCS fuel ice) departing from the direction of the jet (the streak is caused by the slow camera speed). If one plotted all the departure lines of the pushed debris and the expelled ice, they would converge at the jet's location.

These ice particles, in particular, form slowly inside the jets and elsewhere, as the fluid (water or propellant) seeps out and spreads over the surface, They take on the shape of the structure they form on. They can thus have just about any shape, usually flat. They have been seen and photographed for thirty years, about as long as UFOlogists have mistaken them for flying saucers.
source (http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html)

[MRC_Hans]

I'm fairly sure I have read reports of pilots or radar operators seeing aerial objects make 90 degree turns. If these are true, what would your explanations for that be?Let them be proven true first. In other words, let it be proven that it was a directly observed, solid object.

Hans

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, but I have take this opportunity to ask again because I have never had a convincing answer:
If these aliens are secretly visiting our planet, why do they make the basic mistake of putting big lights on their flying saucers?

[MRC_Hans]

I'm fairly sure I have read reports of pilots or radar operators seeing aerial objects make 90 degree turns. If these are true, what would your explanations for that be?

In particular about radar: I don't know how much you know about radar, but the very technology is full of possible sources for 'spooks' (spurious returns). Various automatic schemes to suppress such spurious returns adds to the seemingly enigmatic character of the few that slip through.

The most classical form of radar spook is secondary returns:

The radar pulse is sent out, and the receiver starts detecting returning echoes. The timing of the echo indicates the distance to the target, while the direction of the emitted pulse tells you about the direction.

After a certain time, determined by the system's expected range, a new pulse is transmitted, in a slightly different direction, and the receiver records the echoes. (This is exactly what you see in the old-fashioned ppi scope, where the beam makes a circular sweep, lighting up 'peeps' on the screen).

However, on some occasions, an eco is received from a far more distant target. This may be due to special atmospheric conditions, or a target with an unusually high reflectivity. This echo only arrives after the next pulse is tranmitted, and is interpreted by the equipment as a much closer echo of that pulse.

Landing planes have been directed into the ocean due to secondary returns. :eek:

Modern, advanced radars use various schemes (e.g. frequency coding), to reduce this problem, but it is hard to entirely eliminate. And most of the UFO on radar reports are from the days of much more primitive radars.

Hans

[Ragnarok]

And we have to rely on radar to warn us about possible nuclear attack? That doesn't sound very reassuring.

[MRC_Hans]

And we have to rely on radar to warn us about possible nuclear attack? That doesn't sound very reassuring.Oh, it is reliable 99% of the time, so no worries. :D

Hans

[Stray Cat]

And we have to rely on radar to warn us about possible nuclear attack? That doesn't sound very reassuring.
No, we have to rely on common sense prevailing to avoid nuclear attack. :D

Which is equally un-reassuring.

[Astrophotographer]

The marine footage is nothing but "light pillars". They are caused by ice crystals in the air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pillar)

[Astrophotographer]

And we have to rely on radar to warn us about possible nuclear attack? That doesn't sound very reassuring.

Radar can be fooled and operators can make mistakes. BTW, we do not rely on radar to warn us any more. That is so 1950s. We now use satellites to monitor for such things. They have various sensors to detect launches and missiles in flight.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/warning/SP37.htm

[richardm]

In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y

Intelligence, perhaps, but why extraterrestrial?

Have a look at the first moments of that video up to about 13 seconds in, then have a look at picture #19 at this link. (http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220963). Then look at the first 13 seconds of the video again. Is it not very similar?

If we can agree on that can we not agree that some of the other footage later in the video of objects moving around just like flocks of birds might actually be flocks of birds? They don't look like birds because they're out of focus, but their behaviour looks spot-on. The near straight line groupings are very typical of a flock of geese, because they step themselves out a little to avoid the wake of the bird in front, but want to stay in touch with the other birds.

[Singularitarian]

How do they act?????? They float or something???? :D

The burn up, and follow a trajectory with a fast speed. The object seen in the link, shows the object having some deranged trajectory, with differentiating speeds along that trajectory.

[Singularitarian]

Intelligence, perhaps, but why extraterrestrial?

Have a look at the first moments of that video up to about 13 seconds in, then have a look at picture #19 at this link. (http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220963). Then look at the first 13 seconds of the video again. Is it not very similar?

If we can agree on that can we not agree that some of the other footage later in the video of objects moving around just like flocks of birds might actually be flocks of birds? They don't look like birds because they're out of focus, but their behaviour looks spot-on. The near straight line groupings are very typical of a flock of geese, because they step themselves out a little to avoid the wake of the bird in front, but want to stay in touch with the other birds.

Have i ever stated it exterrestial? No, i haven't. The most likely explanation is that they are military-based experiments.

[Singularitarian]

No, not at all. All you've done is dismiss a possibility without even trying. That's not "crushing". That's ignoring. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it's an absurd explanation.

Also, let's say you're right. It IS a UFO. Where did they go? Where did they land? Why haven't we heard about them? Where are the news reports as to where they landed? I bet that there would news people all over the landing site....

And please, please, please don't say "government cover-up".

Don't ask me where they landed... what are you expecting me to do? Take out my crystal ball?

[richardm]

Have i ever stated it exterrestial? No, i haven't.

I apologise for putting words in your mouth, I was making an unwarranted assumption.

The most likely explanation is that they are military-based experiments.

Did you look at the photograph I linked to? What do you think of that as a likely explanation for the first set of UFOs in the video, at least?

[King of the Americas]

3= (space shot) I see no UFO


The astronauts did, AND they filmed it/them.

Watch the second half of that video more closely.

[Stray Cat]

The most likely explanation is that they are military-based experiments.
And the military are well known for doing secret tests in broad daylight over massively populated cities?

Unless they were experimenting with releasing hundreds of visible spy balloons (!!!!) or training geese for kamakazi bombing runs, your 'most likely explanation' doesn't seem very likely at all.

[Stray Cat]

More news reports, no shotage of a UFO, but strange occurances and observations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJpvzoh1Iw[/URL]

This one has also been put to rest by the Engineers report carried out by the manufacturer. It was structural failure. It happens sometimes.

[URL]http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4CgL79H59A)

Also the reports of strange lights in Lincolnshire that night were due to a local firework display... all this has been confirmed and verified.

[Singularitarian]

And the military are well known for doing secret tests in broad daylight over massively populated cities?

Unless they were experimenting with releasing hundreds of visible spy balloons (!!!!) or training geese for kamakazi bombing runs, your 'most likely explanation' doesn't seem very likely at all.

Really? My logic says otherwise. It seems far more logical to assume that they are in fact taking advantage of the UFO phenomenon.

Indeed, earlier military experiments, when pilots and navigationary skills where not as adiquate today, the appearance of these possible military aerodynamical vehicles spawned the myth that there are aliens out there.

Since again logically-speaking, many of the videos cannot be refuted other than being paranormal in activity, it is then concluded incontrivertibly that the military now don't have to fear so much, because of the veil that has been put over the issue, covered in superfluous amounts of conventional wisdom, targeted to give rationale to these strange, and obviously intelligently-piloted intruments we see dancing in the sky.

[Singularitarian]

This one has also been put to rest by the Engineers report carried out by the manufacturer. It was structural failure. It happens sometimes.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/

Also the reports of strange lights in Lincolnshire that night were due to a local firework display... all this has been confirmed and verified.

Hence, i stated there was no UFO observations :rolleyes:

[Paul]

Really? My logic says otherwise. It seems far more logical to assume that they are in fact taking advantage of the UFO phenomenon.Then you have a very peculiar grasp of logic.


Indeed, earlier military experiments, when pilots and navigationary skills where not as adiquate today, the appearance of these possible military aerodynamical vehicles spawned the myth that there are aliens out there.Complete and utter nonsense.

UFOs were observed as early as 100 BCE and newspapers were printing stories of aliens in the 1890s.


Since again logically-speaking, many of the videos cannot be refuted other than being paranormal in activityPoor grasp of logic again.

Please provide examples of videos for which no explanation but the paranormal is possible.


it is then concluded incontrivertibly that the military now don't have to fear so much, because of the veil that has been put over the issueOh, you mean the veil of the public spotlight, that's always useful when you want to test something secret.


covered in superfluous amounts of conventional wisdom, targeted to give rationale to these strange, and obviously intelligently-piloted intruments we see dancing in the sky.I recognise the words, it's just the way they are arranged that is confusing me.

[Paul]

Hence, i stated there was no UFO observations :rolleyes:You put it in a post titled Real Mass UFO Sightings and used the words no shotage, which I will generously assume to be a typo for either shots or footage, and strange occurances and observations.

What did you expect the implication to be?

[Singularitarian]

Then you have a very peculiar grasp of logic.


Complete and utter nonsense.

UFOs were observed as early as 100 BCE and newspapers were printing stories of aliens in the 1890s.


Poor grasp of logic again.

Please provide examples of videos for which no explanation but the paranormal is possible.


Oh, you mean the veil of the public spotlight, that's always useful when you want to test something secret.


I recognise the words, it's just the way they are arranged that is confusing me.

I think its you who has a wrong definition of ''paranormal'' - Did you by any chance read the definition i gave?

[Singularitarian]

You put it in a post titled Real Mass UFO Sightings and used the words no shotage, which I will generously assume to be a typo for either shots or footage, and strange occurances and observations.

What did you expect the implication to be?

In the text however, i clearly demonstrate that the one you linked was more than cyrstal clear that these where not footages.

Admit you ********** up.

[Singularitarian]

Then you have a very peculiar grasp of logic.


Complete and utter nonsense.

UFOs were observed as early as 100 BCE and newspapers were printing stories of aliens in the 1890s.


Poor grasp of logic again.

Please provide examples of videos for which no explanation but the paranormal is possible.


Oh, you mean the veil of the public spotlight, that's always useful when you want to test something secret.


I recognise the words, it's just the way they are arranged that is confusing me.

Can i also see some of the reasons why some ''highly untintelligent'' race of humans compared to todays standards who would not have written ''a mysterious object in the sky'' if they saw an metiorite? They didn't even know what a meteor was, nor the dynamics behind them.

If you are going to get all ''Eric Von Daniken'' on me, you can take a hike please.

[kittynh]

By definition, the paranormal does not conform to conventional expectations of the natural - UFO's act, unnaturally.

are you saying there is NO explaination? I mean science is any explainaton. science studies stuff. The paranormal is simply the "normal" not explained yet.

Like if an alien is found. Like I run over an alien in my driveway. And I pack it up in the car and I take it to New York city to my friend that works for the Times. He is a lovely person and he wouldn't "cover it up". In fact in minutes we'd have it all over the internet and livestream the decomposition.

But no more would aliens and UFO be considered "paranormal". They would be mainstream science.

Are you saying that when the natives of the Western world encountered Columbus, he was "paranormal"? I'm sure the first few natives weren't believed, despite the beads and stuff. But eventually Europeans were known to all native cultures. They weren't "paranormal" , they were "boy that sure is too weird to believe Squanto" for a bit.

To say something can not be proven because it is "paranormal" is silly.

What do you want people to say? "oh wow those videos prove aliens are visiting us from far away!" or "Those videos can never be exlained, and if you can't explain ALL of them it makes ALL of them unexplainable". Everything can be explained. We may not like the explainaton. But to say "well no, it's paranormal so people can't study and figure this out" is not even what paranormal INVESTAGATORS say. They "investigate". Most UFO people I work with, even the hard core ones. are looking to exclude the 60%plus easily explained sightings. The point is that throwing a lot of BAD evidence in a pile does not make it GOOD evidence. One alien body ( or finger or toenail) will trump all the bad crappy video out there in terms of proof. It's quality not quantity that wins in the end.

Seriously, even MUFRON looks for the good strong cases, and excludes the weak ones.

[kittynh]

oh by "paranormal" or UFO (since it seems a lot of thse videos are IFOs) what do you mean other than "aliens"? "Intellgent pilots" seems...not to indicate humans, why would anyone want to "cover up" humans flying around? You are certainly dancing around the alien issue, yet a rose by any other name...well sure smells like aliens to me.

[Paul]

I think its you who has a wrong definition of ''paranormal'' - Did you by any chance read the definition i gave?Is that all you can say?

Don't you have any examples where paranormal activity is the only explanation? And by paranormal I mean beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation1




1 "paranormal." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 02 Sep. 2009

[Paul]

In the text however, i clearly demonstrate that the one you linked was more than cyrstal clear that these where not footages.Nope, that doesn't make any sense either. By the way, I didn't link to anything.


Admit you ********** up.Perhaps you could show me in what manner I erred.

[Paul]

Can i also see some of the reasons why some ''highly untintelligent'' race of humans compared to todays standards who would not have written ''a mysterious object in the sky'' if they saw an metiorite?What are you talking about, and who are these highly unintelligent people?


They didn't even know what a meteor was, nor the dynamics behind them.And that means or proves precisely what?


If you are going to get all ''Eric Von Daniken'' on me, you can take a hike please.von Däniken has nothing to do with whatever point you are trying to make.

[Caustic Logic]

We had a close encounter a great many years ago in our town. Over several residents of the local village reported seeing objects in the sky. So to this day, being one of the witnesses, i am an avid believer that something is at least strange going on, and that the observations of these strange objects which defy all logic must be taken seriously,

Kudos! Whatever one may say or think about UFOs, a lot of people see, report, and even film them and they're worthy of investigation. For my part, I plan to start a thread (unless there's already a good enough one) in the science forum, NOT paranormal. I'd like to get your input on details of what you saw and any supports you can find.

On the videos you presented here, and on the videos around in general, a few hoaxes and lots of sloppy thinking are involved. I'll focus on this one, since I already examined it for a friend:

In my opinion, the following is the most, disturbing. Indeed, there seems to be an intelligence between how they are formed, and not only that, but one which seems to defy explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJEYzrrGt4Y

The first one, over Seoul doesn't even seem to move. Could a simple baloon floating. What did I miss there?

The second over Mexico is clearly less a "swarm" than a "flock." Large, reflective white birds migrating. If I knew the date and location I could narrow down the likely species. Note the "pulsations" - essentially up-down seeming, as flapping wings would do. Intelligence indeed!

The third over NY is unusual. They don't really move. No natural cause. No normal reason either for lighted balloons strung together in a loose grid to be sent aloft, but AFIK that's exactly what this is. Go to 1:58 and pause where "one of the objects appears to come much closer." Looks exactly like a standard non-lighted balloon with string.

The last one that in Russia that comes behind the helicopters is truly strange seeming to me. No explanation yet.

Checked a couple of others - the pillars of light filmed in Iraq, those aren't even flying nor probably objects at all, and only unidentified by the guy narrating. Weak as hell. The glowing orbs filmed in India, that descend/ascend and float in glowing useless-seeming still formation are a pattern I've seen in other videos (primarily from Latin America), and the most consistent type of UFO that leaves me genuinely wondering what the heck?

[Singularitarian]

Yeh right... Balloons. Considering no one seems to have ever cme forward to releasing so many balloons.

Mass conspiracy?

[Singularitarian]

oh by "paranormal" or UFO (since it seems a lot of thse videos are IFOs) what do you mean other than "aliens"? "Intellgent pilots" seems...not to indicate humans, why would anyone want to "cover up" humans flying around? You are certainly dancing around the alien issue, yet a rose by any other name...well sure smells like aliens to me.

I give up in this thread.

I never ever ever ever mentioned aliens. :covereyes

[BTMO]

That's nothing. What about the mass sighting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Germany?

vL7FcvEydqg


Or what about over Russia in 1957?
b1PW596ZlGk


That is some of the most disturbing and compelling video I have ever seen!!!

[Mako]

Since again logically-speaking, many of the videos cannot be refuted other than being paranormal in activity, it is then concluded incontrivertibly that the military now don't have to fear so much, because of the veil that has been put over the issue, covered in superfluous amounts of conventional wisdom, targeted to give rationale to these strange, and obviously intelligently-piloted intruments we see dancing in the sky.

Please demonstrate why "intelligently-piloted instruments" is a more plausible explanation than skeins of geese.

[Paul]

I give up in this thread.

I never ever ever ever mentioned aliens. :covereyesPerhaps if you used unambiguous language, instead of straining to sound clever, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

[Paul]

Yeh right... Balloons. Considering no one seems to have ever cme forward to releasing so many balloons.

Mass conspiracy?Secret government aircraft that look like balloons is more likely?

[Caustic Logic]

Yeh right... Balloons. Considering no one seems to have ever cme forward to releasing so many balloons.

Mass conspiracy?

Of course, that sounds silly now that I think about it. Clearly it's more likely to be a mysterious "who knows" of the "what's wrong with you closed-minded NASA shills" variety. Paranormal and intelligent, but not alien, to be sure. But balloons tied together in New York? Insane....

I give up in this thread.

I never ever ever ever mentioned aliens.

Perhaps that is for the best. You'd perhaps fit in better at dum-dum video starers.com, where everyone knows any object in the air is a UFO, and can tell you just which of the 80 known ET species is piloting it. Good luck solving your mysteries!

[Stray Cat]

Really? My logic says otherwise. It seems far more logical to assume that they are in fact taking advantage of the UFO phenomenon.
That logic would nearly make sense if you were showing us videos of single flying saucer type craft... which really is the basis of the UFO phenomenon.

Infact it has been speculated that at least some UFO sightings in the past could have been attributed to people seeing the Stealth Bomber in it's early development stages, but the videos you linked here are not that. I'm specifically talking about the one's with Balloons (BTW: It was confirmed, if I can find the link I will but I know it was more than a few years ago now. From memory a civic occasion in the city the footage came from involved the release of hundreds of white balloons on the same day the footage was taken. So it's not hard to work out) and Geese (which can be seen migrating all over the world every year and are a wonderful sight that will cause people to look up in the air to watch).

[Stray Cat]

Hence, i stated there was no UFO observations :rolleyes:
Then why lump it in with others you are promoting as UFOs?
At the time it was originally reported by the UK TABLOIDS, it was a UFO story. And like soooo many UFO stories, turned out to be complete BLX. :rolleyes:

[dafydd]

I think its you who has a wrong definition of ''paranormal'' - Did you by any chance read the definition i gave?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

[BlackKat]

This one has also been put to rest by the Engineers report carried out by the manufacturer. It was structural failure. It happens sometimes.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/

Also the reports of strange lights in Lincolnshire that night were due to a local firework display... all this has been confirmed and verified.

In fact on youtube there are some really fun Vestas videos like such:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

[kittynh]

well in Mexico mass releases of balloons for weddings is common. that and it's a heck of a lot of fun for the people at Iparty to send up a big bunch when they are bored (they were told Not to do it anymore)

[Cuddles]

Sorry, but I have take this opportunity to ask again because I have never had a convincing answer:
If these aliens are secretly visiting our planet, why do they make the basic mistake of putting big lights on their flying saucers?

FAA regulations. Think about it - if you've just robbed a bank, you don't draw attention to yourself by speeding. Similarly, if you're secretly studying a plant in preparation for your invasion, you don't draw attention to yourself by breaking aviation laws. Just imagine how embarrassing for our alien overlords to have to cancel doomsday all because of the interstellar equivalent of running a red light.

[blue sock monkey]

FAA regulations. Think about it - if you've just robbed a bank, you don't draw attention to yourself by speeding. Similarly, if you're secretly studying a plant in preparation for your invasion, you don't draw attention to yourself by breaking aviation laws. Just imagine how embarrassing for our alien overlords to have to cancel doomsday all because of the interstellar equivalent of running a red light.

And then there's that parallel parking problem, too.

[Stray Cat]

Well that's the most believable answer I've had yet Cuddles, thanks :D

[Singularitarian]

And the military are well known for doing secret tests in broad daylight over massively populated cities?

Unless they were experimenting with releasing hundreds of visible spy balloons (!!!!) or training geese for kamakazi bombing runs, your 'most likely explanation' doesn't seem very likely at all.

What would they fear? By military superioty they can fly in any airspace given to them by orders. There is nothing which would prevent experimental aircraft being used... afterall, they would need to test it somewhere.

[BTMO]

What would they fear? By military superioty they can fly in any airspace given to them by orders. There is nothing which would prevent experimental aircraft being used... afterall, they would need to test it somewhere.

The military don't test experimental aircraft out where everyone can see. They test quietly, privately, away from prying eyes.

And what do they have to fear? Other governments, other designers, looking like idiots if their designs don't work initially, etc, etc, etc.

The military have proving grounds where they test new ideas and new machinery.

Don't forget, the F-117 was flying and operational for some years before anyone outside of the military (and their contractors) actually saw one.

[Singularitarian]

The military don't test experimental aircraft out where everyone can see. They test quietly, privately, away from prying eyes.

And what do they have to fear? Other governments, other designers, looking like idiots if their designs don't work initially, etc, etc, etc.

The military have proving grounds where they test new ideas and new machinery.

Don't forget, the F-117 was flying and operational for some years before anyone outside of the military (and their contractors) actually saw one.

Really? Are we speaking from experience here?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[BTMO]

Really? Are we speaking from experience here?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh, you know.

Ten years in the navy, ability to read, that sort of thing...

[Singularitarian]

Ah, yes, of course. Yet again the obvious escaped me.

Every military-recruited individual is told the truth. Who would have ever come up with the idea of a conspiracy within power... what a ridiculous thought.

[Singularitarian]

Of course, that sounds silly now that I think about it. Clearly it's more likely to be a mysterious "who knows" of the "what's wrong with you closed-minded NASA shills" variety. Paranormal and intelligent, but not alien, to be sure. But balloons tied together in New York? Insane....



Perhaps that is for the best. You'd perhaps fit in better at dum-dum video starers.com, where everyone knows any object in the air is a UFO, and can tell you just which of the 80 known ET species is piloting it. Good luck solving your mysteries!
I agree with you. The energy-requirements to travel large distances in space would far exceed any conventional craft. Not to mention the time required to travel massive distances.

[Singularitarian]

Kudos! Whatever one may say or think about UFOs, a lot of people see, report, and even film them and they're worthy of investigation. For my part, I plan to start a thread (unless there's already a good enough one) in the science forum, NOT paranormal. I'd like to get your input on details of what you saw and any supports you can find.

On the videos you presented here, and on the videos around in general, a few hoaxes and lots of sloppy thinking are involved. I'll focus on this one, since I already examined it for a friend:



The first one, over Seoul doesn't even seem to move. Could a simple baloon floating. What did I miss there?

The second over Mexico is clearly less a "swarm" than a "flock." Large, reflective white birds migrating. If I knew the date and location I could narrow down the likely species. Note the "pulsations" - essentially up-down seeming, as flapping wings would do. Intelligence indeed!

The third over NY is unusual. They don't really move. No natural cause. No normal reason either for lighted balloons strung together in a loose grid to be sent aloft, but AFIK that's exactly what this is. Go to 1:58 and pause where "one of the objects appears to come much closer." Looks exactly like a standard non-lighted balloon with string.

The last one that in Russia that comes behind the helicopters is truly strange seeming to me. No explanation yet.

Checked a couple of others - the pillars of light filmed in Iraq, those aren't even flying nor probably objects at all, and only unidentified by the guy narrating. Weak as hell. The glowing orbs filmed in India, that descend/ascend and float in glowing useless-seeming still formation are a pattern I've seen in other videos (primarily from Latin America), and the most consistent type of UFO that leaves me genuinely wondering what the heck?

I bolded this part:

If this be the case, then i would be more than happy to participate, but it will be purely using quantum mechanics as a basis; i must remain as scientific as possible.

[Singularitarian]

oh by "paranormal" or UFO (since it seems a lot of thse videos are IFOs) what do you mean other than "aliens"? "Intellgent pilots" seems...not to indicate humans, why would anyone want to "cover up" humans flying around? You are certainly dancing around the alien issue, yet a rose by any other name...well sure smells like aliens to me.

When i said there was an intelligence behind the movement, it was actually a personal study, purely observational from my part noticing that many of the objects grouped in a type of concordance which seemed improbable to say the least, to be by chance. If the objects are not intellectually-controlled, then they are obviously not controlled by an carbon-based lifeform.

Suffice to say - if you contribute the physics behind such an extraterestrial visitation, there are problems involving not only the energy required to travel to our planet from some distance but also the time required. They may require some advanced technology, psuedoscintifically-speaking but still plausible is some kind of tachyon drive. The tachyon drive would suffice travelling large distances in very small times.

But then again, the likely-hood of this is itself, unlikely, and it seems more probable that the suspect behind these objects are something more close to home.

[BTMO]

Ah, yes, of course. Yet again the obvious escaped me.

Every military-recruited individual is told the truth. Who would have ever come up with the idea of a conspiracy within power... what a ridiculous thought.

Uh huh.

And your knowledge comes from...?

Oh - BTW. I left the (Australian) navy nearly 20 years ago. But you'd be amazed what sort of interaction we "military recruits" had with DSTO over the years.

[Singularitarian]

Uh huh.

And your knowledge comes from...?

Oh - BTW. I left the (Australian) navy nearly 20 years ago. But you'd be amazed what sort of interaction we "military recruits" had with DSTO over the years.
There are greater concerns than your precious life experiences. Admit to the question that military informants, i.e. privates, generals ect. are but pawns of a much more dubious set of political and military diplomacy - one which i will add cares not for the need to expose the truth to the public, never mind answer to the fools who work under their allegience.

[BTMO]

There are greater concerns than your precious life experiences. Admit to the question that military informants, i.e. privates, generals ect. are but pawns of a much more dubious set of political and military diplomacy - one which i will add cares not for the need to expose the truth to the public, never mind answer to the fools who work under their allegience.

I ... have said too much already.

[Cuddles]

If this be the case, then i would be more than happy to participate, but it will be purely using quantum mechanics as a basis; i must remain as scientific as possible.

Trying to crowbar severe misunderstandings of quantum mechanics into a discussion about UFOs is not scientific in the slightest.

[Hindmost]

Trying to crowbar severe misunderstandings of quantum mechanics into a discussion about UFOs is not scientific in the slightest.

Well, you could use a quantum crowbar...

glenn:boxedin:

[Cuddles]

Well, you could use a quantum crowbar...

glenn:boxedin:

But then you can't know where it is and what you're supposed to be doing with at the same time.

Surprisingly similar to regular crowbars now I think about it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's nothing. What about the mass sighting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Germany?


Or what about over Russia in 1957?


A friend caught an FSM on camera here in St. Louis just last year:

http://joethejuggler.com/FSM.jpg

[Paul]

Ooooh, noodly!

[Stray Cat]

What would they fear? By military superioty they can fly in any airspace given to them by orders. There is nothing which would prevent experimental aircraft being used... afterall, they would need to test it somewhere.
But these are balloons and geese!

Of course geese can fly anywhere WITHOUT orders or permission from ATC.
And Balloons have a mind of their own... not literally though! :rolleyes:

[Georg]

A friend caught an FSM on camera here in St. Louis just last year:

http://joethejuggler.com/FSM.jpg



Great pic.:)

[Caustic Logic]

I bolded this part:
Kudos! Whatever one may say or think about UFOs, a lot of people see, report, and even film them and they're worthy of investigation. For my part, I plan to start a thread (unless there's already a good enough one) in the science forum, NOT paranormal. I'd like to get your input on details of what you saw and any supports you can find.
If this be the case, then i would be more than happy to participate, but it will be purely using quantum mechanics as a basis; i must remain as scientific as possible.

I'm glad you caught that. I'm a total skeptic on UFOs so you know, but these reports exist. I'm mostly thinking of the cases where natural explanations simply can't cut it, definite zipping orbs seen by military pilots at their own level etc. I hope quantum mechanics isn't applicable, as I don't know this advanced physics. But if you mean science in general, that's mygrounding. Science all the way. This is the grounding that leads me to first suspect an earthly origin even for something weird.

I've been scanning the threads up and most are one-hit wonders with few discussing the whole phenom or any parts I'm curious about (flight dynamics, UFO color and shape, numbers, where spotted, etc.). There are lots of threads... also I don't have my questions/approach down just yet.

[Hindmost]

But then you can't know where it is and what you're supposed to be doing with at the same time.

Surprisingly similar to regular crowbars now I think about it.

Hmmm...new definition of tools in general...

[Cuddles]

I'm mostly thinking of the cases where natural explanations simply can't cut it

No such example has ever been presented. There are certainly cases where we simply don't know, but there has never been a case where reality could actually be ruled, only those where it could not be definitively ruled in.

I hope quantum mechanics isn't applicable, as I don't know this advanced physics.

It isn't. Quantum physics is utterly irrelevant at the macroscopic level under the kind of conditions that exist on Earth.

I've been scanning the threads up and most are one-hit wonders with few discussing the whole phenom or any parts I'm curious about (flight dynamics, UFO color and shape, numbers, where spotted, etc.).

You've pretty much summarised the whole reason belief in UFOs exists - there's no information on the details that would actually allow you to identify the things. When those details are known, it's not a UFO. When they're not, the most you can say is that it's unidentified. The only reason a unified phenomenon is conceived of at all is that people like Singularitarian take a bunch of different unidentified sightings that most likely have nothing in common, and decide that they must be evidence of a single phenomenon. More importantly, they decide that this phenomenon must be something that not only has no evidence to support it, but is most likely impossible in the first place and is often simply nonsensical. Like Singularitarian's attempts to bring in quantum physics, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm mostly thinking of the cases where natural explanations simply can't cut it
No such example has ever been presented. There are certainly cases where we simply don't know, but there has never been a case where reality could actually be ruled, only those where it could not be definitively ruled in.

I think your limitation may be basing your understanding on the current pattern of bad optics youtube videos. I'm reading a book by Richard Dolan, which I disagree with the basis of, and covers the UFO phenom alongside the US National Security State, from 1941-73. I've only covered up to early 1950 so far, and for the War years (foo fighters, "battle of Los Angeles"), postwar Europe (Ghost Rockets), and late 40's US and worldwide (flying saucers, green fireballs, etc.), Dolan documents hundreds of reports from often competent people on airborne platforms, manning radar stations, looking thrugh theodolites, etc. reporting objects that cannot be explained by anything known, other than bizarre hallucinations. I'm not sure if the same types or numbers are reported today, or it may have been a phase that ended well before now, but few if any seem to have made it to youtube, where we mostly see helicopters, balloons, geese, and planets.

As I said I lean towards Earthly explanations, either from the planet's magnetic field or something like that, or its human inhabitants. I'm open to evidence of alien origin, although it always feels bogus when it's conclusive ("little men"). Either way, I think these stories deserve better explanations than "you're just crazy."

It isn't. Quantum physics is utterly irrelevant at the macroscopic level under the kind of conditions that exist on Earth.

I should have included a wink ;) after that line. I think poster was just trying to say "super sciencey science."

You've pretty much summarised the whole reason belief in UFOs exists - there's no information on the details that would actually allow you to identify the things. When those details are known, it's not a UFO.

Exactly. To identify is to make it an IFO. No, I'm looking for the genuine UFOs and the observed characteristics of them. There are characteristics, and a mind-boggling variety of them.

When they're not, the most you can say is that it's unidentified. The only reason a unified phenomenon is conceived of at all is that people like Singularitarian take a bunch of different unidentified sightings that most likely have nothing in common, and decide that they must be evidence of a single phenomenon.

It's true that many, many people who consider this stuff let their imaginations run wild, and/or give too much credence to the "reputable" AF people who've sworn that "everyone knows" these are alien craft, etc. But they do have in common that witnesses see unidentified objects that are flying in ways birds or balloons can't.

More importantly, they decide that this phenomenon must be something that not only has no evidence to support it, but is most likely impossible in the first place and is often simply nonsensical. Like Singularitarian's attempts to bring in quantum physics, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I don't even know enough about QM to know whether or not its relevant to the unknown propulsion of some UFOs.