Discussing Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the definition and implications of UFOs, emphasizing that they are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, which can include anything from new aircraft to balloons. Participants debate the connection between UFOs and extraterrestrial life, with some asserting that aliens likely exist given the vastness of the universe, while others argue that there is no concrete evidence linking UFO sightings to alien encounters. The conversation touches on historical perspectives, suggesting that early sightings of human-made aircraft were perceived as extraordinary, and questions the credibility of claims about alien technology and communication methods. Additionally, crop circles are mentioned as a point of contention, with some believing they are evidence of alien activity, while others attribute them to human hoaxes. Ultimately, the thread highlights the ongoing fascination and skepticism surrounding UFOs and the possibility of alien life.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #103
Big Sur

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

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

Edit: I attempted to speak with Mr Mansmann a couple of times. Unfortunately he was too ill to speak and then passed away. I did speak with his wife twice and she was kind enough to have a short discussion with me on both occasions. According to Mrs. Mansmann, Mr. Mansmann maintained the truth of this story until his dying breath.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Last edited:
  • #105
To: Commander, USAF Security Services

UFO reports from the Air Force.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106
a note on Roswell:

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

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

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

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

“On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) public information office in Roswell, New Mexico, reported the crash and recovery of a ‘flying disc’. Army Air Force personnel from the RAAF’s 509th Bomb Group were credited with the recovery.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

CIA web site: Users beware!
http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Echelon

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

EDIT: By the CIA's website I mean their homepage http://www.odci.gov/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
This guy is an idiot. If he thinks that telling the public what they want to hear is a good thing, then he has misunderstood science as a whole. If you state something, state it because scientifically you think the evidence points at it. Calling people skeptics doesn't help, and saying that science should pander to what people believe in doesn't help either. Simply on the account that you cannot pursue the study of the unknown on the basis of what people want to be told.
 
  • #112
Originally posted by FZ+
This guy is an idiot. If he thinks that telling the public what they want to hear is a good thing, then he has misunderstood science as a whole. If you state something, state it because scientifically you think the evidence points at it. Calling people skeptics doesn't help, and saying that science should pander to what people believe in doesn't help either. Simply on the account that you cannot pursue the study of the unknown on the basis of what people want to be told.

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

Do you argue that all phenomena is explained?
 
  • #113
Do you argue that all phenomena is explained?
No, neither do I argue that saying aliens are visiting is a always a better explanation than seeing venus. I am saying that it is understandable that there is doubt when we are dealing with eyewitness accounts from people who want to believe, or were in unusual mental conditions, or we see grainy, nasty images after tons of computer image enhancement.
 
  • #114
Originally posted by FZ+
No, neither do I argue that saying aliens are visiting is a always a better explanation than seeing venus.

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

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

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

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

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #115
Nonbody seems to care that something/someone temporarily redirected www.physicsforums.com to the cia homepage after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts, I was quite shocked!

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

EDIT: Sorry not really on topic but wtf
 
Last edited:
  • #116
Originally posted by username
Nonbody seems to care that something/someone temporarily redirected www.physicsforums.com to the cia homepage after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts, I was quite shocked!

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

Username, you are joking. Don't play with my head; I have a wife for that!
 
  • #117
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

I know about echelon and all that but still ... how do they do it must have control of my isps dns servers or somthing ?
 
  • #118
Originally posted by username
after reading one of Ivans dodgey posts

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

Could you please indicate which option you mean. I hope you mean option 3:
 
  • #119
Originally posted by username
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

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

Taking your word for it...YIKES! I'm killing power now. I will be in touc
 
  • #120
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Pronunciation: (doj'E), [key]
—adj., dodg•i•er, dodg•i•est.
1. inclined to dodge.
2. evasively tricky: a dodgy manner of dealing with people.
3. Chiefly Brit.risky; hazardous; chancy

Could you please indicate which option you mean. I hope you mean option 3:
Three what else ;)
 
  • #121
Originally posted by username
Nope this is for real. My MS OS has all the latest service packs etc. It happened after reading a document that was linked to the cia website (your post with the joke warning). Must have lasted about 3 mins.

I know about echelon and all that but still ... how do they do it must have control of my isps dns servers or somthing ?
Sometimes if a doc is linked incorrectly or a site with frames is written badly, you can get locked into a certain website and have to close your browser to get out of it. A lot of advertising sites do it on purpose as well.
 
  • #122
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

EDIT: I think physicsforums was cached by the CIA for having a link to their site/documents on it. I don't think my ISP in UK would put up with one of those mysterious 'black boxes'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sometimes if a doc is linked incorrectly or a site with frames is written badly, you can get locked into a certain website and have to close your browser to get out of it. A lot of advertising sites do it on purpose as well.

Now you tell me! I just burned everything in my file cabinets.
 
  • #124
Originally posted by username
I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

Would it make you feel better if I told you that for the first time since I installed this firewall a year ago, I have blocked at least 20 intrusion attempts in the last few days. My software says it's coming from San Jose California. Actually, I was about to report this. My theory is that it relates to a recent purchase I made; since the attacker is Walmart...so you can relax...I think
 
  • #125
I am behind a nat router with firewall so that's quite secure and no funny ports open that should not be etc.

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

EDIT: of course I was joking about the virus scanner ... ;)
 
Last edited:
  • #126
Originally posted by username
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

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

Gosh username, I would think that it must have been a glitch. Of course, I have spent a lot of time at the CIA, FBI, and at the NSA gathering and reviewing docs lately. Perhaps we drew a little attention. That wouldn't really be so incredible. If someone spent ten hours on my website I might also take a look. Also, Bush has been trying to undo some of the Freedom of Information Act; due of course to national security concerns.:wink: Some people claim that information useful to terrorists can be found at these locations. Assuming that this is true, to monitor certain traffic at these sites would really seem quite prudent. If I was uncle Sam, I would probably use this claim as a sort of terrorist fly paper. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
It is interesting that I have reams of UFO information downloaded from the CIA years ago. A good portion of this information now seems to be missing at the new CIA link; like nearly all of it! I will have to boot-up the old Windows 3.11 machine and check on this.
 
  • #128
Originally posted by username
I did a right click and 'open in new window' on the link http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html then trying to view another post in original window the CIA's homepage came up, same happened when I choose physicsforums from my favourites or entered it manually. Just before it happened I remember trying to do some next/prev in my history and the physicsforums server came back with some error about a referring page or something (maybe a customised 404). Seemed like a minute or two (probably less) I could not get physicsforums back , I guess it could have been some sort of cascade of iexplore bugs but nothing like this has ever happened to my browser before. Crazy paranoia stuff lol :/

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

I think the CIA tagged you, not PF.[?]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #129
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #131
DOD News conference

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: First of all, we certainly have classified programs and we certainly have legitimate reasons for not disclosing some of the work we're doing, whether it's research and development or whether it's operations. I am not aware that we are putting out stories that misstate the truth about those programs. The distinction would be we just don't talk about the programs at all, so I certainly wouldn't talk about any of those programs today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #133
?

COMITA UFO REPORT.

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

NOTE:This report has not been investigated; I just happened upon this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
US NAVY; UFO research guide

Navy FAQ UFO page

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq29-1.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135
hacker update

It seems that my computer hacker is not Walmart. According to Walmart, he or she came in with a forged address; somehow. The last attack this morning was traced to Vienna, Austria; which obviously is not a Walmart address. Walmart already has the authorities involved.
 
  • #136
Additional CIA reports

Go to the Freedom of Information Act, CIA homepage; search UFO. Many additional reports are found.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Edit: I hit on this story some time ago; this is the second one listed after the intial search. This could be an interesting story for some follow up.

"SOMALILAND PRESIDENT EGAL SPEAKS ON MYSTERIOUS BOMB BLAST"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #137
National UFO Reporting Center

Raw reports. Only the most obvious hoaxes are elimated.

http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/
 
  • #138
Hey Username,
If the CIA doesn't have your tongue, , which do you think is the lie?

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

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



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

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

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

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

Edit: Whoops!

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

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

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #139
http://dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm(appraised by NUFORC)

The Burden of Proof is on the U.S. Government. If they have such a craft, let them produce it before the American public and show us all how it can maneuver like a bat out of hell without making a sound.

The giant flying triangles commonly reported could have some sort of electron/ion powered propulsion system, which has been around since the the 1950's developed for the navy. see http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/liftbldr.htm (just imagine a scaled up version!).

I think these people are naive about disclosure but doing a great job.

EDIT: The experiments in the 1950's were apparently classified when electricity in the range of megavolts were applied to the disks on the apparatus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
Hehe my tongue is still intact, call me mr smith err username :)


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

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

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

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

Spoken like a true politician does not really say anything. When he say's "I was not aware of that" is he assuming the allegation is true?

which do you think is the lie ?
Assuming you are talking about the second question in the quote I would have to say the pentagon spokesman, but I have not read any of the other documents yet.
 
  • #141
Maybe some of these witnesses have been confused by a presence of strong EM fields which seems present in a lot of the cases. There is another thread about the effect of EM fields on the human brain somewhere.
 
  • #142
Originally posted by usernam...er...uh...Mr. Smith
Maybe some of these witnesses have been confused by a presence of strong EM fields which seems present in a lot of the cases. There is another thread about the effect of EM fields on the human brain somewhere.

I think every defense lawyer in the country should be using this against all eyewitness testimony. :wink:

This is the very point that finally got to me: After a time, after reading hundreds of similar reports and documents, to dismiss all of the evidence in itself strains credibility. What's more, eyewitness testimony aside, in the Iran event and many others multiple radar locks were made by at least two systems.

I have been aware of and actually had the documents for the Iran incident for about seven years. Only recently however did I fine the original Joint Chiefs of Staff report to confirm the episode. All of this time I did have the original, I just had no way to confirm this fact. I have always felt that if verified, Iran76 is a key event in that all elements of the phenomenon are present - high strangeness, apparent intelligent control, multiple groups of witnesses, radar tracks, multiple UFO’s, and inexplicable technological responses, in short, all of the makings of a Spielberg movie. Of course, considering that Spielberg hired Hynek as a consultant for Close Encounters of the Third Kind [a phrase coined by Hynek], this correlation is to be expected between Hollywood and the real thing. It is art imitating life in this case.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
http://www.thehollywoodextra.com/UFOs/ufo.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
NIDS

National Institute for Discovery Science
http://www.nidsci.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
UFO's for PF: Chapter 1 - Review

This ends the introduction to UFO's.

Begin Chapter 1 of 50:

Review

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

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo16.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo12.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
Chapter 3: The USAF position

The general position of the USAF:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/usaf_f1.pdf

Project Bluebook:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/proj_b1.pdf

Secretary of Defense on the end of Project Bluebook
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/asdpa1.pdf

And

http://www.af.mil/search/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=188&page=1

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS AND AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK

From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated Dec. 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified."

The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evaluation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;" a review of the University of Colorado's report by the National Academy of Sciences; previous UFO studies and Air Force experience investigating UFO reports during 1940 to 1969.

As a result of these investigations, studies and experience gained from investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book were:

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;

There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.

Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force. Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defense budgets, it is unlikely the Air Force would become involved in such a costly project in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in "Encyclopedia of Associations," published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.



POINT OF CONTACT
Requests for copies of records and general information about Project Blue Book should be sent to: Modern Military Records, National Archives, 8601 Adelphi Rd, College Park, MD 20740-6001, (301)713-7250

April 2003
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
Chapter 4 USAF on Roswell

http://www.af.mil/lib/roswell.html

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo39.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
Chapter 5 The CIA and NASA on UFOs

Posted earlier but worth re-posting:
CIA:
http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html

NASA:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/nasa_u1.pdf

Please see page 6 paragraph 2 of the NASA report above. Here we find a clear example of the disparity between one eyewitness and the scientific explanation used to dismiss the claim.

"A red and green glowing orb radiated as it hurtled across the southwestern Georgia skies that January 1969 evening. Ten minutes later, it vanished. That was Jimmy Carter's story — and he's sticking to it. Carter, then Georgia's governor, became the first major politician to risk achieving "crackpot" status by claiming he had had a close encounter."


"I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs," Carter said at a Southern Governors Conference a few years later. "I've seen one myself."

---Former President Jimmy Carter
ABC News interview
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
Chapter 6: Early Responses to the Government's Position

A response from Richard Hall, former Assistant Diretor of NICAP

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo9.pdf

The government's Response to Hall.
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo13.pdf



Another position against the Government
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo4.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top