Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nicholas Roerich, Shambhala, and UFOs

  1. Aug 14, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the UFO napster:

    What a shame that they didn't get a photo!!!

    If you are interested in his art, poetry, any of his other writings, the mystery of Shambhala, or his connection to UFOs, the Roerich museum website is worth a visit. Many of his writings, paintings, and photographs from his expeditions are available.
    http://www.roerich.org/nr.html?mid=wrtgs
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2006 #2
    This is hardly worthy of the debunking forum IMO. What is there to debunk? Theres no evidence other than someone saying he saw something shiny in the sky. Seems more like a topic that belongs in general chat. I think the fact he remarks "We even had time to take our field glasses" but not enough time for a picture, makes this a totally unremarkable story.
     
  4. Aug 14, 2006 #3
    These people saw what appeared to them to be a large, unidentified flying object, specifically: "an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun,” and which moved with non-ballistic motion.

    Why not suggest it was some sort of large balloon that was first carried by one wind, then dropped altitude into a cross wind?

    I once saw an unidentifiable thing flying around erratically above the swap meet. Eventually it dropped low enough to see it was a plain, old plastic grocery bag that had somehow gotten carried way up to the level where hawks cruise.
     
  5. Aug 14, 2006 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Notice that at the time the expectation was that if you saw something shiny in the sky it would be roughly cigar shaped. The only shiny things in the sky normally were dirigibles and zeppelins. Airplanes were not yet shiny, but made of fabric at this date.

    I think that seeing something you can't identify tends to get edited in your subconscious to be like somehing you can recognize.
     
  6. Aug 14, 2006 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think they had point and shoot digital cameras back then. :biggrin:
     
  7. Aug 14, 2006 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The famed Leica 35mm camera was available in 1929, and a climbing expedition would surely have had one along.
     
  8. Aug 14, 2006 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They may or may not have, but in either case the camera may have been packed away. This is often the problem with unusual sightings like this. Generally one has a few seconds to react and it's all over. Heck, it can take weeks to get a clear shot of our deer, and they live on the property.
     
  9. Aug 14, 2006 #8

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think Ivan's on to something there.
    A UFO blind. A big tarp you set up so they can't see you. It would be camouflauged as, say, a crop circle. You must be very quiet. Don't make any sudden movements or you will scare the UFOs away.

    :biggrin: :biggrin:
     
  10. Aug 14, 2006 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well according to Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D., they can hear you thinking.
     
  11. Aug 14, 2006 #10
    This is true. Even with my digital camera I almost never make the effort to get it out to snap a shot of anything that's not sitting still. That's me, though. On the other end of the scale are journalists and paparazzi who shoot incessantly in the hope they'll get a good shot. If someone's not in the mindset of the latter, getting the camera out isn't necessarily their first reaction to something unusual.

    I don't think there's any reason to doubt they saw something unusual they couldn't identify. My reservation is with the wife's later jumping to notions about life on other planets.
     
  12. Aug 14, 2006 #11

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We actually just saw a cloud that looked like a UFO. Nick just made the rest up to impress his friends at the bar.
     
  13. Aug 15, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, and like SA pointed out, our memories may be modified a bit given unrecognizable input.

    I see it like this. First of all, it is one of many well documented examples that "UFOs" weren't invented in 1947. In fact people have supposed such things as unknown beings "from somewhere else" to explain UFOs, for thousands of years. This alone debunks about 80% of the debunkers. Next, since this comes from a seasoned explorer who begins his account with "remarkable!", if we take the story at face value it seems reasonable to assume that something very unusual was seen. His wife's comments support this notion. Next, it may have been something very unusual that has nothing to do with aliens.

    That said, this is only anecdotal evidence for whatever might have been seen. Perhaps it could be considered a striking account given the circumstances, but it is still anecdotal evidence; and not even specific.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nicholas Roerich, Shambhala, and UFOs
  1. Ufo (Replies: 18)

  2. Nicholas Berg video (Replies: 54)

  3. UFO claims. (Replies: 197)

  4. The ABCs of UFOs (Replies: 1)

  5. UFO propulsion (Replies: 1)

Loading...