• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

UFO/CIA drones over Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
The following info came to me as a shock, that's why I'm turning to you guys in the hope of finding out more. The October issue of 'Combat Aircraft' has an article on F-14s in Iran. In a section of the article, entitled 'UFO hunters' , on p. 71 'Iranian sources' are quoted, reporting spherical, luminous spy drones, capable of space flight, reaching speeds up to Mach 10 as well as hovering like a helicopter. The objects supposedly generate strong magnetic fields that distort intercepting jets' avionics. The drones have been spotted over sensitive Iranian installations, including the nuclear center at Bushher, and one crashed back in 2006 or 9: can't remember as I don't have the magazine at hand. Assuming this is not some journo made-up canard crap ( no reason to question 'Combat Aircraft's credibility), has anyone heard of such drones in the US inventory? Does anyone have any clues on the drones' type name, propulsion, anything?
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
Foxglove said:
The following info came to me as a shock, that's why I'm turning to you guys in the hope of finding out more. The October issue of 'Combat Aircraft' has an article on F-14s in Iran. In a section of the article, entitled 'UFO hunters' , on p. 71 'Iranian sources' are quoted, reporting spherical, luminous spy drones, capable of space flight, reaching speeds up to Mach 10 as well as hovering like a helicopter. The objects supposedly generate strong magnetic fields that distort intercepting jets' avionics. The drones have been spotted over sensitive Iranian installations, including the nuclear center at Bushher, and one crashed back in 2006 or 9: can't remember as I don't have the magazine at hand. Assuming this is not some journo made-up canard crap ( no reason to question 'Combat Aircraft's credibility), has anyone heard of such drones in the US inventory? Does anyone have any clues on the drones' type name, propulsion, anything?

I would not use the word "UFO" nor even remotely mention the presumed existence of any craft not already theorized on the pages here. They enjoy burning people like a heretic on the spitfire for that sort of thing around here.... Ask me how I know.... :)
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
Thanks for the tip Sublight, but I don't give a damn about other people's opinion on UFOs. I've been an aviation enthusiast ever since my teens, meaning I can usually tell what I see in the sky, but three times in my life I saw things in the sky that looked/behaved like nothing I know or have ever heard of. OK, I am an ignorant but countless reports from pilots all over the world on objects defying known laws of physics( right-angle turns at high speeds) point to only two possible explanations: the military (US drones over Iran?) have mastered some sort of exotic propulsion or we are being visited/observed by aliens, and I don't think they're Mexicans.
The acronym UFO was used by the 'Combat Aircraft' contributor.
Happy burning!
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
205
Foxglove said:
point to only two possible explanations: the military (US drones over Iran?) have mastered some sort of exotic propulsion or we are being visited/observed by aliens

Or three: the imperfect relationship between the brain, eye and light reflected or emitted from physical objects and phenomena sometimes leads to the appearance of things that aren’t what they seem.
 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
12
Website
rwrwalker.ca
Or four: the Iranian report could have been fabricated for reasons we probably can't understand.

Can anyone suggest why Iran is the only place on the planet the US secret drones (or the little green men) are interested in?
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
Bill Walker said:
Or four: the Iranian report could have been fabricated for reasons we probably can't understand.

Can anyone suggest why Iran is the only place on the planet the US secret drones (or the little green men) are interested in?
Perhaps not the only one, but definitely one of the most interesting for the American intelligence community.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,574
Reaction score
1,562
This thread beings and ends at 'Iranian sources'
 
I

Ian33

Guest
At 1:30 AM the F-4 sped down the Shahrokhi runway for a take off to intercept the UFO. The crew headed north of Tehran toward the brilliant light 70 miles ahead of them. The flight proceeded uneventfully for about 40 miles, but as the F-4 continued its intercept path all communications and instrumentation (Intercommunication and UHF) were suddenly lost. The pilot immediately changed course, breaking off the intercept and headed back for Shahrokhi. After the F-4 turned away from the UFO the jet regained all communications and instrumentation. Was the F-4 no longer a threat? Second Interception Attempt MadeA second F-4 took off at 1:40 AM in an attempt to accomplish what the first jet had failed to do . . . identify the UFO. As this F-4 neared the UFO, radar contact was made by the crew. The size of the radar return was about the same as a return from a 707 jet aircraft. The size of the UFO was difficult to determine visually because of its brilliance. The relative speeds of the F-4 and the UFO were such that the jet was drawing closer at a rate of 150 nautical MPH.
As the F-4, flying at a speed greater than Mach 1, reached the same distance from the UFO that the prior communication loss occurred, the UFO increased its speed. This acceleration of the UFO was confirmed visually and by the aircraft's instrument board radar. The pilot (Lt. Jafari) was unable to close the distance and paced the UFO through Iran's clear night sky. The crew followed the intensely brilliant UFO and noted its light was like flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern. The lights were alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The flashing of the lights was so rapid that all colors could be seen at the same time.
The UFO and the pursuing F-4 were on a course taking them south of Tehran when suddenly another smaller brilliant object came out of the UFO. F-4 Missile Fails To FireThis second object came directly toward the pursuing F-4 traveling at a very high rate of speed. The pilot started to fire an AIM-9 missile at the rapidly approaching object, but at the moment his weapons control panel went off and simultaneously he lost all communications.
With no other defense left, the pilot turned sharply and put the F-4 into a dive in an attempt to evade the projectile from the UFO. The maneuver was not successful since as the F-4 continued its diving turn, the object changed course and trailed the jet briefly at a distance estimated to be 3 to 4 miles. It then increased its speed, went to the inside of the jet's turn, and climbed back to rejoin the "Mother ship."

http://www.cohenufo.org/iranafjet.html

Seems like a great area to test secret active countermeasures on top secret airframes.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
18
Ian33 said:
At 1:30 AM the F-4 sped down the Shahrokhi runway for a take off to intercept the UFO. The crew headed north of Tehran toward the brilliant light 70 miles ahead of them. The flight proceeded uneventfully for about 40 miles, but as the F-4 continued its intercept path all communications and instrumentation (Intercommunication and UHF) were suddenly lost. The pilot immediately changed course, breaking off the intercept and headed back for Shahrokhi. After the F-4 turned away from the UFO the jet regained all communications and instrumentation. Was the F-4 no longer a threat? Second Interception Attempt MadeA second F-4 took off at 1:40 AM in an attempt to accomplish what the first jet had failed to do . . . identify the UFO. As this F-4 neared the UFO, radar contact was made by the crew. The size of the radar return was about the same as a return from a 707 jet aircraft. The size of the UFO was difficult to determine visually because of its brilliance. The relative speeds of the F-4 and the UFO were such that the jet was drawing closer at a rate of 150 nautical MPH.
As the F-4, flying at a speed greater than Mach 1, reached the same distance from the UFO that the prior communication loss occurred, the UFO increased its speed. This acceleration of the UFO was confirmed visually and by the aircraft's instrument board radar. The pilot (Lt. Jafari) was unable to close the distance and paced the UFO through Iran's clear night sky. The crew followed the intensely brilliant UFO and noted its light was like flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern. The lights were alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The flashing of the lights was so rapid that all colors could be seen at the same time.
The UFO and the pursuing F-4 were on a course taking them south of Tehran when suddenly another smaller brilliant object came out of the UFO. F-4 Missile Fails To FireThis second object came directly toward the pursuing F-4 traveling at a very high rate of speed. The pilot started to fire an AIM-9 missile at the rapidly approaching object, but at the moment his weapons control panel went off and simultaneously he lost all communications.
With no other defense left, the pilot turned sharply and put the F-4 into a dive in an attempt to evade the projectile from the UFO. The maneuver was not successful since as the F-4 continued its diving turn, the object changed course and trailed the jet briefly at a distance estimated to be 3 to 4 miles. It then increased its speed, went to the inside of the jet's turn, and climbed back to rejoin the "Mother ship."

http://www.cohenufo.org/iranafjet.html

Seems like a great area to test secret active countermeasures on top secret airframes.

This sounds more like the F-4 pilots were high on LSD. Unless there are countermeasures that can do this to a pilot, its hard to believe that this is "ours". Aren't there similar stories involving American/Western aircraft?
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
926
Reaction score
377
Ian33 said:
At 1:30 AM the F-4 sped down the Shahrokhi runway for a take off to intercept the UFO. The crew headed north of Tehran toward the brilliant light 70 miles ahead of them. The flight proceeded uneventfully for about 40 miles, but as the F-4 continued its intercept path all communications and instrumentation (Intercommunication and UHF) were suddenly lost. The pilot immediately changed course, breaking off the intercept and headed back for Shahrokhi. After the F-4 turned away from the UFO the jet regained all communications and instrumentation. Was the F-4 no longer a threat? Second Interception Attempt MadeA second F-4 took off at 1:40 AM in an attempt to accomplish what the first jet had failed to do . . . identify the UFO. As this F-4 neared the UFO, radar contact was made by the crew. The size of the radar return was about the same as a return from a 707 jet aircraft. The size of the UFO was difficult to determine visually because of its brilliance. The relative speeds of the F-4 and the UFO were such that the jet was drawing closer at a rate of 150 nautical MPH.
As the F-4, flying at a speed greater than Mach 1, reached the same distance from the UFO that the prior communication loss occurred, the UFO increased its speed. This acceleration of the UFO was confirmed visually and by the aircraft's instrument board radar. The pilot (Lt. Jafari) was unable to close the distance and paced the UFO through Iran's clear night sky. The crew followed the intensely brilliant UFO and noted its light was like flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern. The lights were alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The flashing of the lights was so rapid that all colors could be seen at the same time.
The UFO and the pursuing F-4 were on a course taking them south of Tehran when suddenly another smaller brilliant object came out of the UFO. F-4 Missile Fails To FireThis second object came directly toward the pursuing F-4 traveling at a very high rate of speed. The pilot started to fire an AIM-9 missile at the rapidly approaching object, but at the moment his weapons control panel went off and simultaneously he lost all communications.
With no other defense left, the pilot turned sharply and put the F-4 into a dive in an attempt to evade the projectile from the UFO. The maneuver was not successful since as the F-4 continued its diving turn, the object changed course and trailed the jet briefly at a distance estimated to be 3 to 4 miles. It then increased its speed, went to the inside of the jet's turn, and climbed back to rejoin the "Mother ship."

http://www.cohenufo.org/iranafjet.html

Seems like a great area to test secret active countermeasures on top secret airframes.
In 1976? We're supposed to be testing secret active countermeasures on secret airframes over an allies Air-Space? Also funny there is not mention of any engagement of ground defense capability during the incident? Considering how paranoid the Shah was of everyone in the region (including his own people) you'd think they'd have at least tracked it with SAMs.

As for the OP and original (more current one suspects) report, more detail would help but the "claims" are in line with various "UFO" reports, ("UFO" in this case being less about "Unidentified Flying Objects" and more about "Something with fantastic abilities and properties but no one can prove what it was... But ya, it was aliens" kind of thinking) and very much unlikely to be some 'fantastic' technolgy drones that the US (or anyone else) has flying around.

No we don't have any "information" on these "drones" because from the sound of it they aren't "drones" but various types of "UFOs" (in the "Unidentified Flying Object" not "aliens" sense) that probably have some "mundane" explination but given lack of detail and account data are as yet unable to be classifed. The proported abilities are probably misinterpritations or misrepresentations of the data and until and unless there is access to more solid data my suggestion would be to simply take the story as a nice read but with no actual information given.
(Of course now I'm going to have to go out and get that issue just to see what's in the article myself :) )

[quote author=Foxglove]
Because I care about other people's opinions on secret drones.
[/quote]

Then here it is: They aren't "secret drones" but misinterpreted, misreported, and or mistaken observations of currently un-indentified phenomonon. They are probably not "owned or operated" by the US, CIA or any other particular agency or party, they most likely in fact to not exist at all.

Randy
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
Foxglove said:
Thanks for the tip Sublight, but I don't give a damn about other people's opinion on UFOs. I've been an aviation enthusiast ever since my teens, meaning I can usually tell what I see in the sky, but three times in my life I saw things in the sky that looked/behaved like nothing I know or have ever heard of. OK, I am an ignorant but countless reports from pilots all over the world on objects defying known laws of physics( right-angle turns at high speeds) point to only two possible explanations: the military (US drones over Iran?) have mastered some sort of exotic propulsion or we are being visited/observed by aliens, and I don't think they're Mexicans.
The acronym UFO was used by the 'Combat Aircraft' contributor.
Happy burning!

I ended up here asking questions after an incident with a very good friend of mine. He lives in Brownwood TX. In 2007 he had something "aircraft carrier" big slowly cruise over his property. I thought he had gone nuts at first, but he wasnt the only one to see this thing. The more I looked into it, the more interesting it became. I found there has been a lot of sightings dating all the way back to 1982.
Some people here have been helpful, but some have been overly hostile in their response, which is interesting as well.
 

BioLuminescentLamprey

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Ok! I've been wary to bring this up here, but after Sublight's comments, I think it's safe to do so just once! I consider myself a skeptic, but I had an experience that simply cannot be dismissed as tricks of the light, a balloon, swampgas, etc. I was also a little wary of bringing it up around my scientific colleagues, but I was surprised to hear several of them had stories of their own.

In September 2000, in Lawrence Kansas, Kansas University area, a friend and I were sitting in chairs in my backyard looking at the stars. We both noticed a group of 3 stars getting brighter suddenly. Without speaking to each other we both jumped up in surprise as the stars seemed to come unglued from the sky. The 3 stars were each a point of light on the corners of a massive black triangle (I've read that others have seen these things too since then, but I'd never heard of such a thing before and I don't know what to make of other's experiences). The body of the triangle was solid, as it blocked out the stars as it slid silently across the sky. It was very eerie and my friend and I were moving to keep our eyes on it. We ran into the front yard and watched it float to a stop. At this point all 3 of the "star" corner lights suddenly got very bright. A moment passed and then the thing shot straight up and out of sight, streaking up in the blink of an eye. It all occurred right over our heads. The sky was clear and there were no cars, choppers or streetlights interfering with our vision. No booze or drugs had been imbibed! :) I would swear on a stack of bible and on anything I love that what I'm saying is true.

I have no idea what it was. The theories on the internet don't make a lot of sense to me, but I'd sooner assume it was a human creation than something from beyond this World. I'd love to one day find out what this thing was. Any ideas?

BTW, I really don't want to be known as the "UFO guy"! My prime interest here at Secret Projects is good old aviation, particularly low observables technologies and sensors. I'm not a truther, an ATS guy, or anything else. So be merciful!
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
The thing that cruised through Brownwood was triangular as well. Maybe we'll get an answer in another 30 years.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
205
sublight is back said:
The thing that cruised through Brownwood was triangular as well. Maybe we'll get an answer in another 30 years.

Why wait. Here's your answer now.

3917081978_28e7551402_z.jpg

It's a cloud!
 

John21

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
3
I am surprised at the hostility some members here show towards people who believe in the "UFO" phenomenon or have seen things?

Just a few weeks back on the way home from work around 12:07 AM in Scottsdale, AZ, me and my dad so a bright red and blue object with no navigation or flashing lights flying extremely quickly to the north west. It was not in a flight path I've seen before. Probably military though.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
1,447
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
John21 said:
I am surprised at the hostility some members here show towards people who believe in the "UFO" phenomenon or have seen things?

It's not hostility so much as it is Just So Very, Very Tired.

See something you can't adequately explain? That's nice. But if you leap to the assumption that since you cannot readily explain it with the mundane it must therefore be Super Awesome, then, well, you're kind of a dimwit.

History is jam-packed with mysteries. And quite often these head-scratchers are, after a time, explained. And guess what? So far, not a single explained mystery has been proven to have a magical/supernatural explanation. So far, not a single UFO has proven to be extraterrestrial. Only a tiny fraction have proven to be Secret Military Projects. But whole lots of 'em have proven to be Boring Old Aircraft or Unusual Air Operations.

So, people getting excited about this or that is just tiring for those of us who've been through it all before, many times.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
Well if uncle Sam would brush off the cobwebs and punt some of the old stuff over to the National Archives, we'd have a lot less "believers"....
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
1,447
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sublight is back said:
Well if uncle Sam would brush off the cobwebs and punt some of the old stuff over to the National Archives, we'd have a lot less "believers"....

No, you wouldn't. If the DoD declassified every damn thing and posted 'em online, we'd probably be disappointed at the lack of Really Neato Black Projects What Actually Flew. And then... the "believers" would go right on believing. Because the declassification was clearly not complete, and the really neato stuff is stuck behind Double Secret Classification. Obviously.

Reality is, for many people, terribly boring. And thus it's important for some to believe in Bigfoot and Flying Saucers, because it makes the universe more interesting to them. And when confronted with thus who deny their beliefs in the irrational, those people can jack up the interestingness by transferring it to *themselves.* They are now in on the action, part of the special elite of those who are wiser and better informed than the sheeple.

Relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
RanulfC said:
Ian33 said:
At 1:30 AM the F-4 sped down the Shahrokhi runway for a take off to intercept the UFO. The crew headed north of Tehran toward the brilliant light 70 miles ahead of them. The flight proceeded uneventfully for about 40 miles, but as the F-4 continued its intercept path all communications and instrumentation (Intercommunication and UHF) were suddenly lost. The pilot immediately changed course, breaking off the intercept and headed back for Shahrokhi. After the F-4 turned away from the UFO the jet regained all communications and instrumentation. Was the F-4 no longer a threat? Second Interception Attempt MadeA second F-4 took off at 1:40 AM in an attempt to accomplish what the first jet had failed to do . . . identify the UFO. As this F-4 neared the UFO, radar contact was made by the crew. The size of the radar return was about the same as a return from a 707 jet aircraft. The size of the UFO was difficult to determine visually because of its brilliance. The relative speeds of the F-4 and the UFO were such that the jet was drawing closer at a rate of 150 nautical MPH.
As the F-4, flying at a speed greater than Mach 1, reached the same distance from the UFO that the prior communication loss occurred, the UFO increased its speed. This acceleration of the UFO was confirmed visually and by the aircraft's instrument board radar. The pilot (Lt. Jafari) was unable to close the distance and paced the UFO through Iran's clear night sky. The crew followed the intensely brilliant UFO and noted its light was like flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern. The lights were alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The flashing of the lights was so rapid that all colors could be seen at the same time.
The UFO and the pursuing F-4 were on a course taking them south of Tehran when suddenly another smaller brilliant object came out of the UFO. F-4 Missile Fails To FireThis second object came directly toward the pursuing F-4 traveling at a very high rate of speed. The pilot started to fire an AIM-9 missile at the rapidly approaching object, but at the moment his weapons control panel went off and simultaneously he lost all communications.
With no other defense left, the pilot turned sharply and put the F-4 into a dive in an attempt to evade the projectile from the UFO. The maneuver was not successful since as the F-4 continued its diving turn, the object changed course and trailed the jet briefly at a distance estimated to be 3 to 4 miles. It then increased its speed, went to the inside of the jet's turn, and climbed back to rejoin the "Mother ship."

http://www.cohenufo.org/iranafjet.html

Seems like a great area to test secret active countermeasures on top secret airframes.
In 1976? We're supposed to be testing secret active countermeasures on secret airframes over an allies Air-Space? Also funny there is not mention of any engagement of ground defense capability during the incident? Considering how paranoid the Shah was of everyone in the region (including his own people) you'd think they'd have at least tracked it with SAMs.

As for the OP and original (more current one suspects) report, more detail would help but the "claims" are in line with various "UFO" reports, ("UFO" in this case being less about "Unidentified Flying Objects" and more about "Something with fantastic abilities and properties but no one can prove what it was... But ya, it was aliens" kind of thinking) and very much unlikely to be some 'fantastic' technolgy drones that the US (or anyone else) has flying around.

No we don't have any "information" on these "drones" because from the sound of it they aren't "drones" but various types of "UFOs" (in the "Unidentified Flying Object" not "aliens" sense) that probably have some "mundane" explination but given lack of detail and account data are as yet unable to be classifed. The proported abilities are probably misinterpritations or misrepresentations of the data and until and unless there is access to more solid data my suggestion would be to simply take the story as a nice read but with no actual information given.
(Of course now I'm going to have to go out and get that issue just to see what's in the article myself :) )

[quote author=Foxglove]
Because I care about other people's opinions on secret drones.

Then here it is: They aren't "secret drones" but misinterpreted, misreported, and or mistaken observations of currently un-indentified phenomonon. They are probably not "owned or operated" by the US, CIA or any other particular agency or party, they most likely in fact to not exist at all.

Randy
[/quote]
'Probably', 'most likely', 'much unlikely': how about sticking to facts Ranulf rather than theorizing? If we go down this lane I might as well say, which you wrote yourself, the objects are most likely alien spaceships because existing human technology( at least publicly known) does not allow for the flight performance described above. And why do you use 'we' when you write about your lack of knowledge of such technology, you know everybody posting here and how much they know? How do you know, denying it categorically, that they aren't American drones, you're employed at Skunk Works or Phantom Works, you have full knowledge of current black programs, American or other? And finally, why should I treat this article as a nice read only? 'Combat Aircraft' is not 'Private Eye' or 'News of the world', is it?
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
sublight is back said:
Well if uncle Sam would brush off the cobwebs and punt some of the old stuff over to the National Archives, we'd have a lot less "believers"....

No, you wouldn't. If the DoD declassified every damn thing and posted 'em online, we'd probably be disappointed at the lack of Really Neato Black Projects What Actually Flew. And then... the "believers" would go right on believing. Because the declassification was clearly not complete, and the really neato stuff is stuck behind Double Secret Classification. Obviously.

Reality is, for many people, terribly boring. And thus it's important for some to believe in Bigfoot and Flying Saucers, because it makes the universe more interesting to them. And when confronted with thus who deny their beliefs in the irrational, those people can jack up the interestingness by transferring it to *themselves.* They are now in on the action, part of the special elite of those who are wiser and better informed than the sheeple.

Relevant:
Orionblamblam, I assure you that for me the universe is fascinating enough, aliens or no aliens. And, I'm sorry to say, it is your attitude that is irrational, when you deny the possibility of alien visits. It reminds me of the views of one 18th or 19th century French academic, who was ready to bet that meteorites do not come from outer space because it's simply impossible: you can't have rocks flying across the cosmos, anybody who thinks otherwise is a dimwit.
If you care to find out about the latest in space exploration, you will learn that several hundred exoplanets have already been discovered, and, statistically, our galaxy alone could have millions of planets( latest news: even 400 BILLION extrasolar planets, source: wikipedia). If just a fraction of them developed life, and there is no reason to question this assumption, and another fraction of that developed intelligent life, we are still left with hundreds/ thousands of places where spacefaring civilizations could develop, ergo might have/ might be visiting us. This is not theorizing but a logical extrapolation with regard to astronomical data.
You know, while we are at it, the problem with academia, but also with any highly-qualified professionals, is of a psychological nature: it is the fear of the unknown, the fear of knowledge that could undermine many scientific/technological achievements or even ruin careers; hence the hostility, derision, and ostracism on the part of many experts when they are faced with information they can't readily categorize( or they do:misinterpretation, hoax, delusion, swamp gas, etc.) It is only human, but this conservatism hampers progress, cloaking itself in rationalism and empirism, otherwise an absolute necessity in science and most desirable in any cognitive process. In short, while we retain our scepticism, it is also worth keeping an open mind. Difficult as it sounds, it is possible.
As for the cartoon you posted, did you notice the bit about science being based on observation and adjusting itself accordingly? We are talking about observations here. And what about the line saying life is full of mystery? Even the most arrogant scientist will refuse to claim that we already know everything.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
1,447
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Foxglove said:
I'm sorry to say, it is your attitude that is irrational, when you deny the possibility of alien visits.

ERRRRRRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Nobody is even coming close to any such denial. The rest of your post was predicated on that obviously false assumption.

This seems to be drifting slightly from the intended topic.
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
Foxglove said:
I'm sorry to say, it is your attitude that is irrational, when you deny the possibility of alien visits.

ERRRRRRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Nobody is even coming close to any such denial. The rest of your post was predicated on that obviously false assumption.

This seems to be drifting slightly from the intended topic.
I got a different impression, but it's nice to hear that, anyway.
The rest of my post, even if it doesn't apply to you, was based on logical reasoning, available data and my own and others' observations.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,574
Reaction score
1,562
Foxglove said:
Orionblamblam said:
Foxglove said:
I'm sorry to say, it is your attitude that is irrational, when you deny the possibility of alien visits.

ERRRRRRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Nobody is even coming close to any such denial. The rest of your post was predicated on that obviously false assumption.

This seems to be drifting slightly from the intended topic.
I got a different impression, but it's nice to hear that, anyway.

Based on what is observable, provable and repeatable AT THIS moment I believe life does not exist outside of our planet. However, like the great video posted by OBB I can change my mind tomorrow given proper evidence or if the spaceships start landing.
 

Desert Dawn

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
Website
www.picturetrail.com
What't wrong with swamp gas, or St-Elmo's fire and so on ? (please, DON'T start a thread about crop circles... PLEASE).

Though, obviously, from a statistical point of view and the ever growing number of exo-planets being found, and the gazillion more there are out there, we are bound to eventually find that life developed on some of them, even if it is just bacterias or moss. Something more special than that ? Yes, there might be a statistical chance, can't dismiss it totally nor say a yes given our limited scientific knowledge. But are there little green or grey men visiting our world in saucers ? No, it's all a myth created by the USAF that took on a life of its own (and a huge commercial industry). It's rather amusing though.

(And i don't want to encourage stories from 'articles' about Iranian pilots having seen flying disco lights or whatever, these 'articles' are the staple of UFO magazines, just commercial nonsense).
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
1,447
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Foxglove said:
I got a different impression...

Why? What did I say that, in your mind, translated into "I deny the possibility of aliens visiting"?

There are lots of unlikely events or things that people have proposed. "X" might or might have happened. But without evidence that approaches proof, the only honest explanation is that "X might have happened, with a probability that is low/medium/high." And if the probability of X is low, your evidence had better be damned good before reasonable people will give your claims credence. But "doubt" is not the same as "denial." If you do in fact see expressions of doubt as expressions of denial... the problem is in *your* worldview. Those who are incapable of tolerating or comprehending doubters and nonbelievers are generally known as "fanatics" and worse, and if they are at all self aware, they should work to improve themselves rather than demanding that their beliefs be accepted by others.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
This is not really productive. How about just having a sticky in one of the forums that says, I believe you but how about you or your friend go get a nice picture. Then list the latest Nightvision, Thermal, and UV camera's for accomplishing such a task.

Neither side is ever going to win the argument on principle alone, but a picture is one helluva tie breaker....
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,574
Reaction score
1,562
Besides given our own militaristic history we might want a few thousand years to further develop our technologies and weapons (gamma ray annihilation laser perhaps) because there is a higher probability any alien visitors will be closer to the Borg than to Ewoks. ;)
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
205
sublight is back said:
Neither side is ever going to win the argument on principle alone, but a picture is one helluva tie breaker....

Nope, the 'you did not see a space alien or super secret aircraft with amazing performance' side always wins. The reason debates go on is because the 'I saw a UFO' crowd hardly every acknowledges or understands the limits of human perception and how easy it is for people to 'see' weird sh*t, especially at night. Why there are thousands of reports of visual sightings of UFOs yet not real hard physical evidence. Its the Flying Dutchman of the modern age.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
4,299
Who wrote the article?
What were the sources?

Even if the author and their source appear reliable, "Aliens or Secret Mach 10 Drones" is not the set of all possible explanations for Iranian UFO sightings.

People have been seeing unidentified flying objects as far back as we have written records.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
18
The Romans had descriptions of "flying shields" and Christopher Columbus even reported unusual lights so it's nothing new. What about Lockheed's Ben Rich commenting about having some really advanced stuff. Is that a real story with any credibility?
 

Mat Parry

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
9
I have looked for documentation or even the names of people who heard Mr Rich say those infamous words.
One of the versions of the story, the "we already possess the technology to take us to the stars" version, was supposedly the final slide of a presentation that he gave at a university, and my first thoughts were to see if any part of it was true (ie. did he actually present at university x on date y). In the end I gave up, even if he did say something along those lines... It doesn't mean it's true. His book "Skunk works" contains a number of examples of statements which he must have known were not accurate.

On a side note it's amazing that even this supposed quote has several versions of where, when & what was said...

Orionblamblam said:

"Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition"... One of the best lines I've heard in sometime
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
Orionblamblam said:
As NdGT pointed out, Photoshop probably has a "UFO Button" now. Need more than a photo these days.

"Picture" was used in its metaphorical form. "Full motion video" via Nightvision, Thermal, and UV would obviously be the preferred medium of documentation.
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
67
You believers are all wrong. There are no UFO's. If anything it was swamp gas, St. Elmo's fire. Or perhaps even a weather balloon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top