Intelligence official say U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin

[Delvo]

Why?

And why would whatever they had instead be something we both can figure out how to make after just a few decades and would also find beneficial for flight inside our atmosphere?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why?

It would be very disappointing to find out that UFOs are just Chinooks.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why?

And why would whatever they had instead be something we both can figure out how to make after just a few decades and would also find beneficial for flight inside our atmosphere?

Because that is how UFO's are described: Huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, cabable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly, etc. The people who claim to have observed UFOs claim to observe such things.

And yes, if we had had access to more or less intact examples for over half a century, we would surely have been able to copy some of that technology. Just see all the stuff we made in that time, all on our own.

Hans

 

[Andy_Ross]

It would be even easier if live aliens were also captured

 

[MRC_Hans]

It would be even easier if live aliens were also captured

That's another point: Dead or alive, those aliens are reported to be fairly antropomorphic animate creatures. They may have bigger brains than us, but nothing indicates that they should have any very extraordinary abilities.

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

And yes, if we had had access to more or less intact examples for over half a century, we would surely have been able to copy some of that technology. Just see all the stuff we made in that time, all on our own.

When in fact all we have is a reason to by the White Album again.

 

[Delvo]

I would imagine that any aliens arriving on earth wouldn't be using helicopters and gas turbines.

Why?

Because that is how UFO's are described: Huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, cabable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly, etc. The people who claim to have observed UFOs claim to observe such things.

OK, I get that. I was thinking that aliens could very well use different vehicles & propulsion systems for different circumstances, like how we use rockets to send things to other planets/moons but a wheeled vehicle or helicopter or balloon once it actually arrives, and chemical rocket engines for large payload & short range but electric/"ion" ones for light load & long range. Similarly, aliens coming here could be expected to at least sometimes switch from their interstellar system to something more appropriate in our atmosphere. But any such differences among different kinds of alien craft haven't shown up in the reports we get about them.

And why would whatever they had instead be something we both can figure out how to make after just a few decades and would also find beneficial for flight inside our atmosphere?

And yes, if we had had access to more or less intact examples for over half a century, we would surely have been able to copy some of that technology. Just see all the stuff we made in that time, all on our own.

What would make it that quick & easy?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have a book called "the knowledge", which describes the step you would have to go through to accelerate a rebuild of our technology after a near-extinction event. Unless you have a functioning high-tech industry, you can#t just make a computer without make a whole lot of other things first.

Aliens arriving in a small explorer craft might very well have to set up shop somewhere secret and bootstrap their operation to build a World Devastator by starting with producing basic chemicals and a kiln.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Because that is how UFO's are described: Huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, cabable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly, etc. The people who claim to have observed UFOs claim to observe such things.

In the vast majority of cases these aren't just 'claims', the witnesses really did see what they described. If only people would listen to them - instead of inserting their own biases - there wouldn't be so much controversy.

The characteristics of "huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, and capable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly etc.", are strong evidence that should not be hand-waved away. We just have to set aside our preconceptions and look at it with an open mind.

The first preconception we should drop is that the huge accelerations etc. are impossible because no known aircraft (or spaceship) technology is even theoretically capable of such maneuverability. These things aren't helicopters or Skunk Works projects, or any craft of human origin. We should stop calling them UFOs too, because 'flying object' implies they are some kind of conventional aircraft that has to follow the rules of aeronautics.

Forget all that stuff that is limiting your imagination, and the truth will become obvious. The reason these things can move with such incredible agility is that they are made of pure electromagnetic energy, tuned to frequencies that are sometimes visible to the human eye. With this technique they can travel the vast distances of space from far away galaxies in virtually no (local) time at all. Because they are in fact, nothing more than beams of light.

Only a light beam explains all the observed characteristics. It could come from as far away as Mars or as close as that lamp behind you reflected in the window, from car headlights, squid boats, or the Sun shining off ice crystals in a cloud. It may morph into a cigar shape or pulsate as if it was spinning, but if you see little green men peering out the windows that's just your preconceptions again. Keep an open mind and you will see these 'UFO's for what they really are.

We must never belittle those who report UFO sightings just because their observations don't match our preconceptions. Calling them deluded or dishonest is counterproductive. They know what they saw, and if you won't believe them there are plenty of others willing to listen - and twist it to suit their agendas. Most people who see UFOs aren't invested in them being alien spaceships, they just want an explanation for what they saw. To do that we need to listen to what they say, not dismiss it as mere 'claims'.

 

[Pixel42]

Alternatively what they were looking at was a lot closer and smaller than they assumed it was, and the accelerating and maneuvering were consequently neither huge nor incredible.

 

[Delvo]

Really, most stories of sightings of something unknown in the sky don't even specify the outrageous high-g maneuvers. Those are just something that's been talked about enough that, when people hear another new story of something unknown in the sky without that detail, they fill it in for themselves.

 

[suren]

In the vast majority of cases these aren't just 'claims', the witnesses really did see what they described. If only people would listen to them - instead of inserting their own biases - there wouldn't be so much controversy.

The characteristics of "huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, and capable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly etc.", are strong evidence that should not be hand-waved away. We just have to set aside our preconceptions and look at it with an open mind.

The first preconception we should drop is that the huge accelerations etc. are impossible because no known aircraft (or spaceship) technology is even theoretically capable of such maneuverability. These things aren't helicopters or Skunk Works projects, or any craft of human origin. We should stop calling them UFOs too, because 'flying object' implies they are some kind of conventional aircraft that has to follow the rules of aeronautics.

Forget all that stuff that is limiting your imagination, and the truth will become obvious. The reason these things can move with such incredible agility is that they are made of pure electromagnetic energy, tuned to frequencies that are sometimes visible to the human eye. With this technique they can travel the vast distances of space from far away galaxies in virtually no (local) time at all. Because they are in fact, nothing more than beams of light.

Only a light beam explains all the observed characteristics. It could come from as far away as Mars or as close as that lamp behind you reflected in the window, from car headlights, squid boats, or the Sun shining off ice crystals in a cloud. It may morph into a cigar shape or pulsate as if it was spinning, but if you see little green men peering out the windows that's just your preconceptions again. Keep an open mind and you will see these 'UFO's for what they really are.

We must never belittle those who report UFO sightings just because their observations don't match our preconceptions. Calling them deluded or dishonest is counterproductive. They know what they saw, and if you won't believe them there are plenty of others willing to listen - and twist it to suit their agendas. Most people who see UFOs aren't invested in them being alien spaceships, they just want an explanation for what they saw. To do that we need to listen to what they say, not dismiss it as mere 'claims'.

Sure, if someone tells me an extraordinary story I'm am only just skeptical unless the evidence is powerful enough to convince me (or at least make me think seriously about the possibility). I don't completely dismiss most of such stories but don't believe in them much either. The existence of aliens is very possible but it is not quite the same thing as aliens visiting the Earth...

 

[Checkmite]

In the vast majority of cases these aren't just 'claims', the witnesses really did see what they described.

Yeah but the fact that they're just describing them is what makes them claims.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but alongside this more recent flap of "descriptions" there's also been a handful of (as described by enthusiasts) compelling video clips supposedly showing these UAPs in action. But while the witnesses describe all manner of zany physics-defying antics on the part of the objects, none of the videos shows anything like that. It's always some fuzzy dot moving in more or less a straight line at a not too amazing speed, not behaving in any way that some known manmade airplane couldn't possibly behave.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but alongside this more recent flap of "descriptions" there's also been a handful of (as described by enthusiasts) compelling video clips supposedly showing these UAPs in action. But while the witnesses describe all manner of zany physics-defying antics on the part of the objects, none of the videos shows anything like that. It's always some fuzzy dot moving in more or less a straight line at a not too amazing speed, not behaving in any way that some known manmade airplane couldn't possibly behave.

I'm skeptical of that claim. Care to provide an exmaple?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The existence of aliens is very possible but it is not quite the same thing as aliens visiting the Earth...

Especially humanoid aliens. But most observers don't leap to that conclusion. "I saw a strange light in the sky" is nowhere near the same as "the US government has intact craft of alien origin". If I was in charge, people who made such claims would be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Delvo]

The characteristics of "huge accelerations, incredible maneuvering, noiseless, and capable of going from supersonic to hovering almost instantly etc.", are strong evidence that should not be hand-waved away. We just have to set aside our preconceptions and look at it with an open mind.

The first preconception we should drop is that the huge accelerations etc. are impossible because no known aircraft (or spaceship) technology is even theoretically capable of such maneuverability...

Only a light beam explains all the observed characteristics. It could come from as far away as Mars or as close as that lamp behind you reflected in the window, from car headlights, squid boats, or the Sun shining off ice crystals in a cloud. It may morph into a cigar shape or pulsate as if it was spinning...

witnesses describe all manner of zany physics-defying antics on the part of the objects

I'm skeptical of that claim. Care to provide an exmaple?

The claim that the observed "objects" are described as accelerating & turning seemingly impossibly quickly seems to be the claim that you just made yourself, and gave an explanation for, like a laser dot on a wall moving faster than the device that's making it could move.

Are you asking not for an example of such movement in general, but specifically that it's an "object" doing it?

Or are you asking not for that but for why these maneuvers would be called "physics-defying"? Not only are the accelerations apparently too much for jets & rockets to produce, requiring the use of some separate new phenomenon in physics that we have no inkling of yet, but also the effects don't match what would happen even if some amazingly powerful new propulsion system were invented (along with a way for the contents of the ship to survive it). For example, more acceleration takes more energy, and all uses of energy produce waste as heat, light, sound, or a combination. And moving anything through the air disturbs the air, which at the claimed performance levels would mean creating thunder, chemtrailscontrails, flame trails, or a combination. But the every description I've heard of about these amazing movements is missing any such side effects. That lack of the side effects dictated by physics is "physics-defying" even if we grant the idea that zooming like that is within physics in the first place.

Or did you accidentally highlight the wrong part when you meant to highlight the next part right after that?:

...none of the videos shows anything like that. It's always some fuzzy dot moving in more or less a straight line at a not too amazing speed, not behaving in any way that some known manmade airplane couldn't possibly behave.

This matches my memory too, but I don't have a catalog of all such videos to show you. Within the last month or two, for example, there was that "triangle of lights" formation near a military base, which just floated in place for a while and then went dark. No zooming is shown and nobody who saw it describes any zooming. We just still have the zooming stuck in our heads from other cases we've seen either as video or as verbal/text descriptions... except that, as far as I can tell, it seems to always be verbal/text descriptions. The zoomy ones seem to keep being the ones they don't get on video. I could try to find the recent triangle video and show that it didn't zoom, but that wouldn't do anything toward showing that there's no zooming in other videos of other events. It's just the impression I've gotten, that I read about the zooms but don't see them in videos.

 

[Axxman300]

Speaking as a guy who used to attend UFO discussion groups, the big issue underlying all of this is that it's a circle-jerk. We're not getting anything new here. The leaked US Navy videos have all been explained. And now we have a "whistle-blower" who's not giving us anything we haven't heard before. And this is at a time where we've seen real classified information copied and released online through Wikileaks. There is still no documented evidence.

I got kicked out of the local UFO discussion group for asking this question: Why is there never any evidence?

I get it, lights in the sky moving too fast to photograph. The two UFOs I saw years ago were at night, and before cellphones. And I didn't think either one was a UFO until it did something un-airplane like. Doesn't make them aliens, just super out of the ordinary. But if one crashed there's be evidence. If the military showed up, there'd be evidence of that.

What bothers me is this latest UAP thing is part of someone's agenda, and is being pushed by a small-but-connected group of UFO believers, and that should bother everyone here. Hell, they're adding werewolves and poltergeists to the mix of things the US Government should waste money researching...No, I'm not kidding.

 

[arthwollipot]

What bothers me is this latest UAP thing is part of someone's agenda, and is being pushed by a small-but-connected group of UFO believers, and that should bother everyone here. Hell, they're adding werewolves and poltergeists to the mix of things the US Government should waste money researching...No, I'm not kidding.

That's always been the issue, ever since Robert Bigelow decided that he didn't want to die.

 

[MBDK]

In the vast majority of cases these aren't just 'claims', the witnesses really did see what they described. If only people would listen to them - instead of inserting their own biases - there wouldn't be so much controversy.

Well, since we know that eyewitness testimony is quite unreliable, and the human mind fills in information when we see something we don't immediately recognize, it's not so much that competent investigators aren't listening, rather they understand the likelihood of such tales being fraught with human error. Your fanciful energy-object hypothesis is pure conjecture, and will remain so until the highly unlikely event of evidence for such a phenomenon arises.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The claim that the observed "objects" are described as accelerating & turning seemingly impossibly quickly seems to be the claim that you just made yourself,

Perhaps you should read my actual post, where I quote the person who 'claimed' that is how UFO's are described (which they often are - can't believe you are disputing this).

Not only are the accelerations apparently too much for jets & rockets to produce, requiring the use of some separate new phenomenon in physics that we have no inkling of yet, but also the effects don't match what would happen even if some amazingly powerful new propulsion system were invented (along with a way for the contents of the ship to survive it).

That's what I said! Seems you didn't read the rest of my post either.

for example, there was that "triangle of lights" formation near a military base, which just floated in place for a while and then went dark. No zooming is shown and nobody who saw it describes any zooming.

So, not an example of 'witnesses describing all manner of zany physics-defying antics on the part of the objects' that the video didn't show.