Space.com: Black Triangle sightings on the rise by Succatash

NEWS HEADLINE DISCUSSIONS

Space.com: Black Triangle sightings on the rise

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Monday, October 25, 2004 05:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5654
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 3, 2004 9:14 PM

Thu Sep 2, 4:30 PM ET

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
SPACE.com
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=14&u=/space/20040
902/sc_space/silentrunningblacktrianglesightingsontherise

"They have become legendary in UFO circles. Huge, silent-running Flying Triangles have been seen by ground observers creeping through the sky low and slow near cities and quietly cruising over highways.

The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), has catalogued the Triangle sightings, sifting through and combining databases to take a hard look at the mystery craft. Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, NIDS is a privately funded science institute with a strong research focusing on aerial phenomena.The results of their study have just been released and lead to some unnerving, still puzzling conclusions.

The study points out: The United States is currently experiencing a wave of Flying Triangle sightings that may have intensified in the 1990s, especially towards the latter part of the 1990s. The wave continues. The Flying Triangles are being openly deployed over and near population centers, including in the vicinity of major Interstate Highways.

Covert operations?

A key NIDS conclusion is that the actions of these triangular craft do not conform to previous patterns of covert deployment of unacknowledged aircraft. Furthermore, neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known.

The years 1990-2004 have seen an intense wave of Flying Triangle aircraft, the study observes. Sifting through reports by hundreds of eyewitnesses, the NIDS assessment states that the behavior of the vehicles does not appear consistent with the covert deployment of an advanced DoD [U.S. Department of the Defense] aircraft.

Rather, it is consistent with (a) the routine and open deployment of an unacknowledged advanced DoD aircraft or (b) the routine and open deployment of an aircraft owned and operated by non-DoD personnel, suggests the NIDS study.

The implications of the latter possibility are disturbing, especially during the post 9/11 era when the United States airspace is extremely heavily guarded and monitored, the NIDS study explains. In support of option (a), there is much greater need for surveillance in the United States in the post 9/11 era and it is certainly conceivable that deployment of low altitude surveillance platforms is routine and open.

Open, even brazen

According to Colm Kelleher, NIDS Administrator, the newly completed quasi meta-analysis of Flying Triangles melds three major U.S. databases: NIDS, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and data collected by independent researcher, Larry Hatch, the creator and owner of one of the largest and most comprehensive UFO databases in the world.

Kelleher said, the analysis indicates that deployment of Flying Triangles is open, not covert, and involves low-flying, brightly lit aircraft routinely deployed over populated areas including cities and Interstate highways.

However, I cannot say whether these are U.S. Air Force aircraft. We simply don't know, Kelleher told SPACE.com . But it does not appear to be consistent with the covert patterns of deployment we saw with the F-117 and B-2 prior to their acknowledgement. This is open, even brazen, he stated.

Stealth aircraft

For example, a perfunctory look at the how past DoD stealth aircraft programs were kept from public eye -- although eventually came to light -- is different from the patterns for the Flying Triangles.

Prior to acknowledgement of the F-117 and B-2 aircraft, only rare night time sightings occurred in the sparsely populated sections of Nevada, California and a few other states. Flying at low altitude over populated areas was rarely reported for the F-117 or B-2.

In contrast, the Flying Triangle deployment, especially during the 1990s, appears more consistent with the open and public operation of these aircraft, the study explains. The trend of open deployment of the Flying Triangles is not consistent with secret operation of an advanced DoD aircraft.

No attempt to hide

The database-driven study of the Flying Triangle shows the following patterns:

-- Sightings take place near cities and on Interstate highways
-- They are seen at low altitude in plain sight of eyewitnesses
-- They fly at extremely low speed or hover in plain sight of eyewitnesses
-- The vehicles sometime fly with easily noticeable bright lights -- either blinding white lights, or have bright disco lights that usually flash combinations of red, green or blue.

The NIDS study emphasizes that the flying of these vehicles may be more in harmony with an attempt to display or to be noticed. There appears to be little or no attempt to hide. That finding has led to a modification of an earlier NIDS hypothesis that the Triangles are covertly deployed DoD aircraft.

While it is too early to dismiss the previously published NIDS correlation between Triangle sightings and a subset of U.S. Air Force Bases, the apparent association with centers of population may point away from a covert program. Rather, it is consistent with routine and open deployment of an advanced aircraft, the NIDS study concludes.

Clustered on both coasts

During the ensuing years (2000-2004), NIDS received hundreds of reports from people in the United States and Canada reporting large triangular aircraft, often silent and often flying at very low altitude and at low air speed. In many cases, the objects were brightly lit. NIDS files also include reports of Flying Triangles from remote areas.

In mid 2004, NIDS reviewed its database that contains the locations of the Triangle sightings in the United States. The sightings of Triangles appear primarily adjacent to population centers and along Interstate Highways, with sightings clustered on both coasts.

NIDS has amassed almost 400 separate sightings of triangular/boomerang/wedge-shaped objects. Many of these craft are brightly lit, low flying, and traveling at unexpectedly low air speeds.

In earlier reports, NIDS outlined a tentative correlation between reported sightings of Triangles and the locations of Air Mobility Command and Air Force Materiel Command bases in the United States.

Like a Star Trek "uncloaking"

According to ground observers, the features of a Black Triangle are indeed impressive.

For example, the NIDS study includes the observation of a Port Washington Wisconsin person who encountered a large object that flew over her home at 500 feet altitude in October 1998. Her eyeing of the clear starry night was interrupted as the craft came into her field of view.

Suddenly this monstrosity came out of the blue, just like a Star Trek 'uncloaking', no kiddingso quiet I couldnt believe it and so hugeno more than 500 feet or so up, and big enough to take up my field of sky vision, she reported.

Crude mathematics, the witness recounted, would make the vessel about 200 feet wide and 250 feet long.

Two camps

In wrapping up its look at the burgeoning number of Flying Triangle sightings in the United States, NIDS also took into account the work of writers and researchers delving into the topic both in the United States and abroad.

Those analyses fall into two camps: The Triangles are human-made, while the other says they are not.

In 2004 it is extremely difficult to distinguish between these two possibilities since the former option overlaps heavily with legitimate national security concerns, while in the absence of much more physical evidence, the latter option is not testable, the NIDS assessment concludes."

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 4, 2004 3:41 AM

CALHOUN

A friend and I saw something similar about 10 years ago.

It was the middle of the day, we were driving near the beach when we both saw this large triangular shape flying silently down the coastline. The one main difference I can see is that this thing we saw was going very fast.. we expected a sonic boom. It never came.

I pulled over and we both had this incredulous look on our faces and were so excited thinking we had witnessed some major event which others surely would have seen and would be on the news... never heard another thing about it.

I still remember the look on my parents faces when I was telling them. I am sure they thought I was on drugs..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 4, 2004 10:12 AM

CYBERSNARK

Serendipitously, I've been halfassedly researching UFO-related conspiracies for a story lately, and I came across something interesting: http://www.crystalinks.com/vedic.html (fair warning, it has this horrible cheery muzak that won't shut up.)

To summarize the interesting part: India's Rama Empire coexisted with Atlantis, and apparently fought a nuclear war with them (as chronicled in the Mahabharata), explaining the vitrified, fused, and often mildly radioactive ruins found in certain corners of the world). Also according to the Mahabharata, both sides had access to highly-advanced aircraft.

What's interesting is that the Atlantean ships (called Vailixi) were "cigar shaped," while the Raman craft (Vimanas) were usually either spherical or disk-shaped. Both of these descriptions have been invoked since the earliest UFO accounts, dating back thousands of years (possibly even into neolithic times, if you believe the cave paintings).

Triangles only started appearing recently, when people started talking about the (typically US) government using captured "alien" tech.

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
have bright disco lights

Yikes. That's just what we need. An interstellar Soul Train.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 4, 2004 6:55 PM

EBONEZER

Oh good. As if i didn't already have enough un baised fears, no i have to deal with disco dancing aleins.

Thanks tash. No really, this means a lot to me.

-----------------------------------

Four out of five dentists reccomend calling Ebo a girl.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 4, 2004 9:15 PM

ANOTHERFIREFLYFAN

Wow, that totally freaks me out cause I remember several years back, while on an interstate, an odd boomerang shape lit up aircraft flew over us, and I thought it was strange. As years have gone by, I just dismissed it as an airplane.

Anyway, whatever they are they must be human created. I'm not one to believe in supernatural, superstition, or conspiracy theories.

~AFf

Keep flying

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 8, 2004 12:32 AM

COSMICFUGITIVE

I've been following the subject for 10 years now. I've learnt to be objective and sober about the subject and it still challenges my beliefs.

I'm not surprised about the rise in FT sightings recently. It's just classic FT behaviour. They're just testing the water of human reaction.

Commercial airline and Fighter pilots still have the highest percentage of sightings of all UFOs anywhere in the world though. (Even if a lot of them aren't reported through fear of ridicule.)

Oh, and Brazil is a major hotspot too...

I have to agree that the FT's might be nuts and bolts technology. There's a chance it's just top secret flights of new airforce technology (A high percentage of sightings in the West coast of America have been blamed for it over the years according to the CIA), but it doesn't explain the rest.

(There are several types of UFO's: FT's, Cigar-shaped, Boomerangs, Classic Saucers, Orbs (Foo Fighters)...).

They're spotted on land and falling into the sea. There's even footage taken by NASA of them in space too. It's all mad.

On a more serious note, there's a theory that our perception of UFOs are distorted because of the way our eyes work. They fill in the blanks and we're not really seeing something as it really is. It still doesn't explain what it is, but it could partly be some natural phenomena. I don't know. It gives me brainache.

I read about the ancient nuclear wars too. It's interesting stuff.

There are also hieroglyphs in Egypt that clearly depict helicopters, submarines, tanks and so on that could be related.. It's weird...

http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/atlantis_and_giza.html#ANCIENT%20AI
RCRAFT

Here's a following link that has a data base of Government UFO files and other subjects released under The Freedom of Information Act that might be of interest to anyone.:

http://www.blackvault.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 8:26 AM

NEBARISCAPER

It's Fall. I always see more triangles in Fall. Winter it's mostly circles, Summer octagons, Spring ahh yes glorious Spring brings visions of trapezoidal glory.....

James Marsters in the Dresden Files
http://www.buzzymultimedia.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 9:48 AM

EBONEZER

Aw man, I saw this, and read it again and was like "Oh shit! They're back!" But its just the same thing revised....which is good...i guess..

-----------------------------------

Four out of five dentists reccomend calling Ebo a girl.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 3:05 PM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by nebariscaper:
It's Fall. I always see more triangles in Fall. Winter it's mostly circles, Summer octagons, Spring ahh yes glorious Spring brings visions of trapezoidal glory.....

Cool! I see duodecahedrons around Christmas time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:37 PM

SPACEFILLE

Some of them are aircraft... my wonderful British Astrophysicist professor (in my astronomy class) showed us the designs for a military jet the US was working on back a couple years ago... the jet was a black triangle shape. He passed around a piece of grey/black plastic he had helped design for the hull. Apparently this plastic it absorbed radar signals so it would be virtually undetectable. I don't think he was supposed to show us those either, but since we're Canadian, maybe it didn't matter? Anyway, it sounds like your black triangles may be those.

I don't believe in UFOs or aliens amoung us anyway... I think 99% of them can be explained in some way. A point in case... I had just fallen asleep one night about a year ago to "wake up" to find an alien in my room with me. (It had been a half an hour since I last looked at the clock). I couldn't move to get away and I was terrified and he came over and pressed his hand into my back. I felt the weight of it and the pins and needles that raced through me as I really did wake up was very real.

I did a bunch of research to determine that what I had was a night terror, a condition occasionally brought on by stress. There was no alien and the tingly sensation was caused by my brain releasing adrinaline to try to get me to wake up. From that I further deduced that the vast majority of UFO sitings were night terrors or hallucinations. Point in case, the stereotypical UFO siting... driving someplace on a long highway at night or at twilight. You're tired and you start to drift off. Half awake half asleep you begin to have a night terror, a truck is coming towards you at an distance, it's lights can very easily turn into a spinning orb of a flying saucer. If the highway's divided it going to go right by you all spinny and flyer saucery like. Now say that your brain is smart and had you pull over to the side of the road before you dozed off without you remembering doing so, and it's an hour later when you have the night terror. You jerk awake, scared out of your mind, to find that an hour's gone by, you just saw a UFO... what are you going to think?

Some food for thought at least...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:02 AM

CALHOUN

While I do concede that most or all UFO sightings could POSSIBLY be explained away as an optical illusion or halleucenation etc..

I have to chuckle at people who proclaim not to believe in aliens.. These people must surely have an over-exaggerated notion of self importance.

Whilst I am not going to say that I dont believe in GOD(just in case) the idea that life evolved on another world somewhere is to me a whole lot more believable and scientifically valid. Yet I would guess that at least half the worlds population believes in some form of deity or another..

Does that seem right to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:55 AM

CYBERSNARK

"To suppose that earth is the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to believe that in an entire field sown with millet, only one grain will grow."
--Metrodorus of Chios, 4th century B.C.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:56 AM

SPACEFILLE

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:

...
I have to chuckle at people who proclaim not to believe in aliens.. These people must surely have an over-exaggerated notion of self importance.

Whilst I am not going to say that I dont believe in GOD(just in case) the idea that life evolved on another world somewhere is to me a whole lot more believable and scientifically valid. Yet I would guess that at least half the worlds population believes in some form of deity or another..

Does that seem right to you?

While I'm not taking out the possiblity of life of somesort on other planets, I do think it's absurb to think that they'd be HERE. I think it's pretty self important to think that they'd actually find us interesting enough to sit around and probe and investigate us.

Also the possible life on other planets are probably nothing like us at all, to the point that we might not recongize it as life. One of the things I enjoy about Firefly is the lack of humanoid life wandering around. Maybe MAYBE, since the universe is arguably infinite, there are humanoids, somewhere. But not anywhere close by I imagine. And by close by I mean in the local galaxy, which is pretty darn huge itself.

I can't say anything about God. That's someone else's debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:18 PM

CALHOUN

Quote:
Spacefille wrote:
Sunday, October 24, 2004 06:56

While I'm not taking out the possiblity of life of somesort on other planets, I do think it's absurb to think that they'd be HERE.

So, you think it absurd to think that in all the vastness of our universe(let alone all the other universes) civilisations have evolved to the point where they have mastered interstellar travel?

If we survive the slow death of our own little "scrap of nowhere" we will eventually become sufficiently advanced to find a way to the stars(granted it may take a while). When this happens do you suppose we would seek out other life or actively avoid it..

I think it is in our nature to seek life out. When we find other lifeforms I think it would be prudent to study them prior to making our presence known. An advanced race discovering us would be foolish to just announce themselves to us straight up..

We are being observed and i'll bet we are found lacking...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 2:24 PM

CYBERSNARK

(Disclaimer: the following post is opinion and speculation, not targetted at Spacefille [hi, BTW], just jumping off of something she said.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Spacefille:
I think it's pretty self important to think that they'd actually find us interesting enough to sit around and probe and investigate us.

Alternatively, what I find self-important is the idea that there might not be more to this than we think.

It's fully possible the Greys (to pick the most high-profile example) have a very good reason for being interested in this particular little scrap of nowhere.

Maybe it's some resource we possess, maybe it's a random quirk of fate that's made our respective genomes compatible, heck, maybe it's just that they can't get to anywhere else.

Plain and simple fact is there needs to be some kinda (non-blue-handed) investigation into this before we can make any conclusions as to what's going on --investigation that just plain isn't happening. I could do a whole rant on scientiffic dogmatism, but I'll just end with an ironic Jackie Chan Movie quote:

Quote:
We are the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!!

--Around the World in 80 Days

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:42 PM

SPACEFILLE

Never fear, I love a good debate. :) *waves back at both Calhoun and Cybersnark* Now keep in mind I am an extreme skeptic, and I like to keep my feet grounded. Perhaps a little too much. I do love sci-fi, but I watch it for the optimistic escapism it gives me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
So, you think it absurd to think that in all the vastness of our universe(let alone all the other universes) civilisations have evolved to the point where they have mastered interstellar travel?

If we survive the slow death of our own little "scrap of nowhere" we will eventually become sufficiently advanced to find a way to the stars(granted it may take a while). When this happens do you suppose we would seek out other life or actively avoid it..

I'm not arguing about interstellar travel... I'm sure something has done it before.

As for the slow death, I do think the human race as we know it will be extinct long long before that happens. Look at it this way... our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. It should survive about 4.5 billion years more. Of that time it's only been about 65 million of it that mammals have flourished and about 3 million of it that something even remotely human have existed. Heck even grass has only been around for about 35 million years. Our more recognizable ancestors didn't even show up until about 130 thousand years ago. I would theorize that, just like the rest of the creatures on this planet, we'll continue to evolve to the point that some 65 million years in the future we will not be able to recognize a former human, let alone communicate with them. I also think that, even if we don't manage to wipe ourselves out, we'll have gone off to explore other places, sure. But you know what? If we found a compatible planet to ours, I highly doubt we would do anything but take it over and settle it, regardless of who or what was originally there. Why? Because if you as a species or intelligence do not make measures to preserve yourself, then you are going to cease to xist. Your existence must come before all else.

This all brings me to the next comments--

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I think it is in our nature to seek life out. When we find other lifeforms I think it would be prudent to study them prior to making our presence known. An advanced race discovering us would be foolish to just announce themselves to us straight up..

We are being observed and i'll bet we are found lacking...

I disagree with you on two points. Humans, by nature, are destructive. More often than not we destroy what we mean to preserve. Several 100s of species of dead animals lay truth to this. We use up resources rapidly and squander what is rare. We, as a whole, oppress, kill, lie, cheat and steal to further small groups of ourselves. Even religious groups that are supposed to be charitable and loving to all mankind end up persecuting fringe groups or other bunches of humans that are different than them. If we can't even find it in ourselves to protect and love other humans/the planet we live on/the other animals we us for our subsistence, how can we possibly expect us to study a race or creature that is completely different than us? We would more than likely find an intelligent alien race that is so different than us that there is no possible way to communicate with each other and thus we write them off as stupid and expendable. Star Trek has done this kinda theorizing before and I tend to agree with it.

If we are being observed then hell yeah, we are lacking. Humans are like ants... when's the last time you leaned over an ant hill and attempted to communicate with the "drones" as they scurried about? Better yet, when's the last time you kicked an ant hill just for fun or knew of another human that had done that?

Another reason why I don't believe in aliens or UFOs is the simple fact that we're not dead yet. So if we're not dead (so our resources are not needed) and we're not very interesting, then why would they be studying us? A sense of self importance? Deciding that others need to study us because we're fascinating?

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
It's fully possible the Greys (to pick the most high-profile example) have a very good reason for being interested in this particular little scrap of nowhere.

The concept of Greys and aliens themselves are problematic because they speak of an ethnocentric look at possible other life originating from other planets (unless Greys originally came from Earth, which I would believe a lot quicker.) Why? Because in the grand evolutionary scheme of things (see above) I highly doubt an alien from another planet would be a symmetrical being with a rounded head, two eyes, a neck, torso, two arms with appendages and legs with the same. Planets with slightly different gravity would theoretically evolve completely different beings more adapted to their environments.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Plain and simple fact is there needs to be some kinda (non-blue-handed) investigation into this before we can make any conclusions as to what's going on --investigation that just plain isn't happening.

I do agree with you on the investigation part. Investigation is good. But I'm a see it to believe it gal, so until someone says there is alien life out there and we know for sure, I'll continue to believe that UFOs and Greys are not aliens but rather Earth borne phenomena.

~~~

But seriously guys, no hard feels are meant in this. Your view points have legitimacy as well. :) I hope you don't mind as I fuel debate, I'm usually not this boring or depressing, just taking the opposite side and all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 25, 2004 1:24 AM

CALHOUN

Quote:
Spacefille wrote:
Sunday, October 24, 2004 16:42
Never fear, I love a good debate. :) *waves back at both Calhoun and Cybersnark* Now keep in mind I am an extreme skeptic, and I like to keep my feet grounded. Perhaps a little too much. I do love sci-fi, but I watch it for the optimistic escapism it gives me.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calhoun:
So, you think it absurd to think that in all the vastness of our universe(let alone all the other universes) civilisations have evolved to the point where they have mastered interstellar travel?

If we survive the slow death of our own little "scrap of nowhere" we will eventually become sufficiently advanced to find a way to the stars(granted it may take a while). When this happens do you suppose we would seek out other life or actively avoid it..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not arguing about interstellar travel... I'm sure something has done it before.

As for the slow death, I do think the human race as we know it will be extinct long long before that happens. Look at it this way... our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. It should survive about 4.5 billion years more. Of that time it's only been about 65 million of it that mammals have flourished and about 3 million of it that something even remotely human have existed. Heck even grass has only been around for about 35 million years. Our more recognizable ancestors didn't even show up until about 130 thousand years ago. I would theorize that, just like the rest of the creatures on this planet, we'll continue to evolve to the point that some 65 million years in the future we will not be able to recognize a former human, let alone communicate with them. I also think that, even if we don't manage to wipe ourselves out, we'll have gone off to explore other places, sure. But you know what? If we found a compatible planet to ours, I highly doubt we would do anything but take it over and settle it, regardless of who or what was originally there. Why? Because if you as a species or intelligence do not make measures to preserve yourself, then you are going to cease to xist. Your existence must come before all else.

This all brings me to the next comments--

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I think it is in our nature to seek life out. When we find other lifeforms I think it would be prudent to study them prior to making our presence known. An advanced race discovering us would be foolish to just announce themselves to us straight up..

We are being observed and i'll bet we are found lacking...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with you on two points. Humans, by nature, are destructive. More often than not we destroy what we mean to preserve. Several 100s of species of dead animals lay truth to this. We use up resources rapidly and squander what is rare. We, as a whole, oppress, kill, lie, cheat and steal to further small groups of ourselves. Even religious groups that are supposed to be charitable and loving to all mankind end up persecuting fringe groups or other bunches of humans that are different than them. If we can't even find it in ourselves to protect and love other humans/the planet we live on/the other animals we us for our subsistence, how can we possibly expect us to study a race or creature that is completely different than us? We would more than likely find an intelligent alien race that is so different than us that there is no possible way to communicate with each other and thus we write them off as stupid and expendable. Star Trek has done this kinda theorizing before and I tend to agree with it.

If we are being observed then hell yeah, we are lacking. Humans are like ants... when's the last time you leaned over an ant hill and attempted to communicate with the "drones" as they scurried about? Better yet, when's the last time you kicked an ant hill just for fun or knew of another human that had done that?

Another reason why I don't believe in aliens or UFOs is the simple fact that we're not dead yet. So if we're not dead (so our resources are not needed) and we're not very interesting, then why would they be studying us? A sense of self importance? Deciding that others need to study us because we're fascinating?

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
It's fully possible the Greys (to pick the most high-profile example) have a very good reason for being interested in this particular little scrap of nowhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concept of Greys and aliens themselves are problematic because they speak of an ethnocentric look at possible other life originating from other planets (unless Greys originally came from Earth, which I would believe a lot quicker.) Why? Because in the grand evolutionary scheme of things (see above) I highly doubt an alien from another planet would be a symmetrical being with a rounded head, two eyes, a neck, torso, two arms with appendages and legs with the same. Planets with slightly different gravity would theoretically evolve completely different beings more adapted to their environments.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Plain and simple fact is there needs to be some kinda (non-blue-handed) investigation into this before we can make any conclusions as to what's going on --investigation that just plain isn't happening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree with you on the investigation part. Investigation is good. But I'm a see it to believe it gal, so until someone says there is alien life out there and we know for sure, I'll continue to believe that UFOs and Greys are not aliens but rather Earth borne phenomena.

~~~

But seriously guys, no hard feels are meant in this. Your view points have legitimacy as well. :) I hope you don't mind as I fuel debate, I'm usually not this boring or depressing, just taking the opposite side and all.

Cynic!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 25, 2004 5:08 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Spacefille:
Because in the grand evolutionary scheme of things (see above) I highly doubt an alien from another planet would be a symmetrical being with a rounded head, two eyes, a neck, torso, two arms with appendages and legs with the same.

Well, the humanoid form does have its advantages; two legs is the minimum that you need for relatively stable and energy-efficient locomotion. Only other alternatives are a serpentine tail (which'd mean a lot of surface area for heat-loss, which'd matter if you were cold-blooded) or multiple legs, which ties into:

Two hands for manipulating one's environment, and that (thanks to bipedal locomotion) can function as extra legs on very rough terrain, or in case of injury. Articulated fingers and opposable thumbs, again, necessary for controlling one's environment. Tentacles would work too, but they tend to be weaker (no bones for passive structural support --the muscles have to do everything). Only improvements here would be to add more thumbs, possibly more arms, and maybe some sort of sucker-like attachments at the fingertips.

Having the brain inside the sensor-bulb is a kinda stupid idea (it'd be safer inside the body), but it's happened often enough on Earth. Plus it means that the sensors are as close to the brain as possible, for added cognitive speed. Two eyes is again the absolute minimum for 3D vision, though more would probably be better (there's a reason spiders never miss their jumps). The facial arrangement is a little suspicious (nostrils and mouth are necessary, but why placed just like on humans?).

Quote:
Planets with slightly different gravity would theoretically evolve completely different beings more adapted to their environments.

Well, looking at the typical Grey xenobiologically (which is a field I'd love to work in, but it doesn't exist yet

):

It looks like they do come from a lighter-gravity world, given the frailness and the alleged slow deliberation of their movements on Earth. They're probably nocturnal by nature, given the large eyes (some accounts suggest that the "wrap-around" eyes are just artificial membranes over smaller human-like eyes, which could suggest any number of things from light filters to some sort of biotech portable heads-up-display).

The brain-heavy look is curious (wouldn't be very helpful in the "evolutionary wild," so it might've evolved after they acheived civilization). We don't know if the Greys are egg-layers or not, but for mammals, bigger brains mean more birth trauma, which means fewer successful births. That's why human infants have collapsable skulls. Almost certainly tied into the empathic/telepathic abilities they're supposed to have.

Many Grey accounts talk about genetic harvesting, and sometimes suggest that the Greys are trying to interbreed with humans to overcome a plague (or possibly an evolutionary dead-end). This itself is suspicious; since anyone with FTL tech would likely have less invasive, messy, and dangerously unreliable means of cloning/genengineering.

My personal pet theory/speculation is that the Greys were ferried here by someone else. They don't have access to their own technology (however advanced it may or may not be) and are forced to "Macgyver" everything from existing human tech (which is why nothing anyone's recovered is definitively non-Earth made). They may have allied with (or even created) the MiBs and government conspiracies to try to "cultivate" higher tech that they could use to get home (or whatever their ultimate goal might be). Probably they're working from a base either here on Earth or within the inner solar system (mysterious probe vanishings on Mars, the moon likely being hollow, UFOs and MiBs around Mt. Ranier. . .).

All this of course doesn't even go into the other aliens in other parts of the world (the "hairy trolls" of South America, or the "Nordics" of Europe and Scandinavia), or the (supposedly Earth-evolved) reptilians that are sighted just about worldwide.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 25, 2004 5:46 AM

COSMICFUGITIVE

I love a good debate.

I'd say I'm pretty open about this stuff, but I like to keep it pretty grounded in facts. (If any.)

I've appreciated reading most of the comments here.

Greys and Black FT's may or may not exist but they aren't exclusive to the subject. They are only a small part of it. It just becomes cliche or the next 'cool thing to talk about'.

It's a BIG part of the problem with Ufology to ridicule the next person's beliefs if they don't match up with your own.

It never becomes a serious topic of debate.(Even with respected, investigators of the subject.)

Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. (I don't want to knock anyone's here.)

But it's silly when the topic escalates into farce by the sceptics.

There's a theory that the UFO phenomenon mimicks ancient belief systems. (Like the 'Gods'.)

The UFO phenomenon has been around for millions of years, but the frequency of reports in the current 'space age' climate makes you wonder... The ancient gods are just replaced by aliens who belong to the next new frontier - space.

Then there's the opposite end of the story with Erich Von Danikken, who's work is a little extreme even for me. But at least he provides solid evidence no matter how much stick he gets.

It's not the clearest of subjects to talk about. It's not the easiest one either.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cybersnark
Plain and simple fact is there needs to be some kinda (non-blue-handed) investigation into this before we can make any conclusions as to what's going on --investigation that just plain isn't happening.

Investigations have been going on for years (and still do)in one way or another. Both in a 'blue handed' and 'non-bluehanded' way.

Project Blue book from the 50's is a good example.
The military, airforces and even police forces of the world conduct their own reports of sightings.

The CIA and DIA have made their own investigations during the cold war.

In WWII, there were investigations by the world's Governments into supposed 'Ghost rockets' in northern Europe. The Russians were believed to be testing them, but it wasn't really proven.

Even Winston Churchill famously wrote a letter to the Royal Airforce demanding an investigation into UFO's. He wrote: 'What does all this stuff about flying saucers amount to? What can it mean? What is the truth? Let me have a report at your convenience.'

Fighter pilots in WWII and those participating in more up to date conflicts regulary claim to have see UFO craft. Various accounts were submitted to investigate the phenomenon.

It seems ashame that we'd ridule the testimony of our soldiers who were trained to spot any danger at any moment because their claims were a little 'out there'.

There are a lot more investigations worldwide over the years that would take too long to describe here...

There are also numerous serious and qualified investigators
like Budd Hopkins, Stanton T Friedman (a nuclear physicist that worked on the Roswell investigation),Allen Hynek (who wrote a report on Project Blue Book), Timothy Good, Nick Pope (MOD), Jenny Randles, who take a detailed, unbiased and factual approach to the UFO or abduction phenomenon and still do today.

At the end of the day, there's a possibility that the UFO phenomenon may be just a tool to respark the beliefs in our origins in our current society. It's no surprise that these powerful entities would be alien considering our own technological advances. It could just be nasty propaganda tapping into our fears of survival as a species. It's another theory at least.

UFO sightings are interesting but I've learned to ask 'who wants to know what kind of vehicles they drive?' It's the drivers that we need to know about.

It sounds REALLY funny, but the abduction phenomena is A LOT more complicated and interesting to study. It might make people really sit up and take notice if they gave it a chance.

It would be great to hear any constructive thoughts that you guys may have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE