Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There are secrets being kept from WW1 that little kids know about but the US military keeps them "top" secret. The one most often talked about is the secret writing via lemon juice and a candle. 

Repeating fanciful stuff like this without any supporting documentation doesn’t exactly lend credibility to any claims you make. It’s likely one of those things that has a tiny grain of truth to it that kept getting modified with each retelling, like the ‘whisper’ game, until you end up with this claim. What’s telling is the credulous telling of it, just like the blind acceptance of other things. Skepticism is required here, and this doesn’t pass the sniff test.

What’s much more likely, to me, is that this method appeared in a document that was classified, and remained classified for some time because it contained other information that still needed to be classified, or there is some other reason for not declassifying (like some statute that says you can’t declassify the document for 100 years) that has nothing to do with this specific item.

If this were top secret, who broke federal law to point out that it’s classified?

edit:

The last time this came up I pointed out that the document was declassified in 2011. You should update your story.

Further, it's probably this one

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP11X00001R000100010003-7.pdf

Item 38.

The document is confidential, not top secret. There are 50 items in it, and any one of the other 49 might be the reason the document was not declassified sooner. But saying that lemon-as-invisible-ink is classified is like saying "the" is classified because it appeared in a classified document.

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Repeating fanciful stuff like this without any supporting documentation doesn’t exactly lend credibility to any claims you make. It’s likely one of those things that has a tiny grain of truth to it that kept getting modified with each retelling, like the ‘whisper’ game, until you end up with this claim. What’s telling is the credulous telling of it, just like the blind acceptance of other things. Skepticism is required here, and this doesn’t pass the sniff test.

What’s much more likely, to me, is that this method appeared in a document that was classified, and remained classified for some time because it contained other information that still needed to be classified, or there is some other reason for not declassifying (like some statute that says you can’t declassify the document for 100 years) that has nothing to do with this specific item.

If this were top secret, who broke federal law to point out that it’s classified?

edit:

The last time this came up I pointed out that the document was declassified in 2011. You should update your story.

Further, it's probably this one

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP11X00001R000100010003-7.pdf

Item 38.

The document is confidential, not top secret. There are 50 items in it, and any one of the other 49 might be the reason the document was not declassified sooner. But saying that lemon-as-invisible-ink is classified is like saying "the" is classified because it appeared in a classified document.

Really? The lemon writing is all you got from this? 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Really? The lemon writing is all you got from this? 

It didn't seem so, we all keep secrets (for whatever reason) and society is just an expanded version of us, therefore gossip is orders of magnitude greater than it is at street level.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Really? The lemon writing is all you got from this? 

It's the point you brought up that I was addressing. Now that you know it's false, I assume you won't claim it again.

If there were other points, by all means discuss them.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It's the point you brought up that I was addressing. Now that you know it's false, I assume you won't claim it again.

If there were other points, by all means discuss them.

This is the absolute epitome of disrespect and often the main way disrespect is spread. Ignore any points that are valid and concentrate on trivial details that can be used to denigrate more important aspects of any argument. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

This is the absolute epitome of disrespect and often the main way disrespect is spread. Ignore any points that are valid and concentrate on trivial details that can be used to denigrate more important aspects of any argument. 

If a point isn’t valid, you shouldn’t bring it up. But this is a science site. You should expect claims to be challenged.

I can’t comment on things I don’t know about; if data are classified how could I?

You don’t give any citations  for claims, so they’re hard to follow up on.

Your stance on gathering data is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This is the absolute epitome of disrespect and often the main way disrespect is spread. Ignore any points that are valid and concentrate on trivial details that can be used to denigrate more important aspects of any argument. 

I disagree.  The points that can be explained should be. 

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If a point isn’t valid, you shouldn’t bring it up. But this is a science site. You should expect claims to be challenged.

I can’t comment on things I don’t know about; if data are classified how could I?

You don’t give any citations  for claims, so they’re hard to follow up on.

Your stance on gathering data is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I disagree.  The points that can be explained should be. 

You guys are correct, I am wrong, I again concede the topic cannot be discussed scientifically with the data we currently have. I will go back to ignoring this topic due to lack of data.    

[Moontanman]

On 1/14/2024 at 12:47 PM, TheVat said:

Stockholm U. astronomer Villarroel and her team have been studying transient light sources on old photographic plates.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92162-7

9 transients that appeared in April 1950.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/3/6312/7457759

Three transients that coincided with famous July 1952 Washington DC sightings of UAP.

Article that includes section (scroll to last third of article) on Villarroel's team.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/14/what-happens-if-we-have-been-visited-by-aliens-lied-to-ufos-uaps-grusch-congress

Other astronomers, using different techniques, have seen things that warrant further investigation. Beatriz Villarroel, assistant professor of physics at Stockholm University, is leading a team of astronomers looking at photographic plates of the night sky that date from before the first artificial satellite was launched in 1957.

As satellites orbit the Earth, they can reflect sunlight causing bright glints to appear in the night sky. These leave streaks on astronomical images or spots of light that appear and disappear seemingly at random. Mysteriously, on one plate from April 1950, Villarroel found nine sources of light that appeared within a half-hour period and then vanished. Conducting observations using the Gran Telescopio Canarias, on La Palma in the Canary Islands, revealed nothing at the locations of the light sources that might have flared up.

“There is no astronomical explanation for this type of event,” says Villarroel.

More recently, her team found three bright “stars” on a plate dated 19 July 1952 that have since vanished. Provocatively, this is a date burned into the diaries of UFO enthusiasts around the world because it coincides with a famous incident in which pilots and radar operators saw lights they could not explain in the skies above Washington DC.

“I think it’s very important to do this kind of [nearby] searching for extraterrestrial objects because the [astronomical] community mostly looks for things very, very far away. I think it’s time to do something new,” says Villarroel, who is now working to establish the ExoProbe project to look for anomalous objects among the vast number of human satellites currently in orbit.

(this will get interesting if contamination of these old photographic plates can be ruled out.  The Guardian article also discusses the psychological effects on the public, if a conspiracy of concealment of ET evidence were to be revealed, though that might be another thread topic)

I feel like I have stolen the thunder from your post. I think this particular route of inquiry has real world importance. The July 1952 Washington DC "Merry Go Round" was IMHO one of the most important sightings ever reported not to mention one of the most widely misrepresented sightings ever.

The US Air Force totally screwed the pooch on their ridiculous explanation of "false radar returns due to temperature inversion". The desperation of the Air Force to explain away at any cost the "UFO Phenomena" is on open display here and the idea of unknown objects being photographed in orbit around he Earth at the very time this "sighting" occurred is potentially earth shattering!    

[TheVat]

23 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I feel like I have stolen the thunder from your post. I think this particular route of inquiry has real world importance. The July 1952 Washington DC "Merry Go Round" was IMHO one of the most important sightings ever reported not to mention one of the most widely misrepresented sightings ever.

The US Air Force totally screwed the pooch on their ridiculous explanation of "false radar returns due to temperature inversion". The desperation of the Air Force to explain away at any cost the "UFO Phenomena" is on open display here and the idea of unknown objects being photographed in orbit around he Earth at the very time this "sighting" occurred is potentially earth shattering!    

Well, the Oxford U P link, on the triple transients, is worth reading the abstract and then the summary section at the end, where the range of possible distances of the objects is calculated.  Between 2 LY and somewhere in the solar system (but not in Earth orbit).  It's a mystery on several levels, including if they are actually three objects (no more than 6 AU from each other, if the dimmings are causally connected) or a single one with some unusual gravitational lensing effect.  Not thunder, but still an anomaly worth following up on.  

Edited January 19 by TheVat
minor

[Moontanman]

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Well, the Oxford U P link, on the triple transients, is worth reading the abstract and then the summary section at the end, where the range of possible distances of the objects is calculated.  Between 2 LY and somewhere in the solar system (but not in Earth orbit).  It's a mystery on several levels, including if they are actually three objects (no more than 6 AU from each other, if the dimmings are causally connected) or a single one with some unusual gravitational lensing effect.  Not thunder, but still an anomaly worth following up on.  

I misquoted you, sorry about that, the objects were not in Earth orbit but as you say still interesting. 

[TheVat]

Yes, still interesting as an unusual transient and for its one hour appearance on the exact day, July 19, 1952, of the famous DC sightings.  If it was located at the near end of its possible distance, i.e. within the solar system, then I can at least see how someone would speculate that it was a formation of ET craft firing their engines to decelerate on approach to the Earth.  My doubt (aside from the sheer improbability factor) is regarding the profile of the three transients - there being no observable elongation due to movement.

When bright in 1952, the most isolated transient source has a profile nearly the same as comparison stars, implying the sources are subarcsec in angular size and they exhibit no elongation due to movement. 

[swansont]

“Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjydq/former-pentagon-ufo-investigator-is-pissed-because-congress-believes-in-conspiracy-theories

“As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded ‘whistleblowers’ in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their ‘evidence’ and statement for the record despite numerous invitations,” he said

[Moontanman]

Ok, this is a sighting from 1957, this observation occurred during a training flight of an electronic warfare aircraft over the USA. This report is from a speech from Dr James E. McDonald Professor of Atmospheric Sciences University of Arizona Tucson. 

I would provide some quotes but for some reason it wont let me copy/paste this article. 

The aircraft was followed by the UFO over a couple hundred miles or so and the full extent of the electronic warfare equipment was brought to bear on the UFO as it followed the US Air Force YB47 jet. There were nine men on board the aircraft. 

http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_fsr_16_3_2_70.pdf

This is about as well documented as they come and yes I understand this falls short of the rigor required by science and is illustrative of why IMHO we will never be able to get scientifically rigorous data from this subject unless it is real and they let us have that info.

There is a reasonably accurate video that describes this case if you prefer watching a video to reading a pdf. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdhQaqmFaY

This who Dr. James E. McDonald was. 

Edited January 27 by Moontanman

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would provide some quotes but for some reason it wont let me copy/paste this article. 

No worries.  A pdf file is basically an image formed from scanning something, so without some kind of OCR software there is no way to extract pieces of text.  (if you pay for Acrobat you can get it) I will read through it tomorrow morning.  Today was one of those glorious but exhausting ones - remodeling and operating at slightly above my skill level.  I enjoy house wiring, but 8 AWG is not forgiving.  

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I enjoy house wiring, but 8 AWG is not forgiving

No, it is not… especially not in the cold. Putting in a 220V service for some welding or a big blue power hammer or something?

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

No worries.  A pdf file is basically an image formed from scanning something, so without some kind of OCR software there is no way to extract pieces of text.  (if you pay for Acrobat you can get it) I will read through it tomorrow morning.  Today was one of those glorious but exhausting ones - remodeling and operating at slightly above my skill level.  I enjoy house wiring, but 8 AWG is not forgiving.  

Thanks, wiring is a trip, I've done a little bit of it when doing my own home improvements too. I found an interview of one of the scientists, Stockholm U. astronomer Villarroel, who wrote the paper you referred to in a recent post about 1952 Palomar photographic plates. If you want to see it let me know.  

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Thanks, wiring is a trip, I've done a little bit of it when doing my own home improvements too. I found an interview of one of the scientists, Stockholm U. astronomer Villarroel, who wrote the paper you referred to in a recent post about 1952 Palomar photographic plates. If you want to see it let me know.  

Sure!  Reading the pdf on the RB47 encounter, I was struck by the three different channels of information consistently presented to crew over a distance of six hundred miles.  I could see no explanation that would be consistent with either natural phenomenon or secret cutting-edge technology in 1957.  

12 hours ago, iNow said:

No, it is not… especially not in the cold. Putting in a 220V service for some welding or a big blue power hammer or something?

New induction range.  Which, I'm told, Joe B will reimburse me for sometime this year.  

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Sure!  Reading the pdf on the RB47 encounter, I was struck by the three different channels of information consistently presented to crew over a distance of six hundred miles.  I could see no explanation that would be consistent with either natural phenomenon or secret cutting-edge technology in 1957.  

New induction range.  Which, I'm told, Joe B will reimburse me for sometime this year.  

Check this out.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azW33jxaHPs

 

[TheVat]

17 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Check this out.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azW33jxaHPs

 

Thanks.  Watched about half of it, up to the speculation on Von Neuman probes.  (had to watch without sound...automated captions are entertaining - Lick Observatory was captioned as "leak observatory")  Some interesting hypothesizing on such objects.  UAO seems like a good name for them, unidentified astronomical object. 

If it's an ET artifact, then it's also a question of how distant (far enough that it shows as point images without any elongation along their trajectory) and if it is entering or leaving the solar system.  The odds that any object's trajectory would be straight at Earth are extremely small, even if Earth is its destination.  After all, a trip to Earth would involve first a path of deceleration, then a solar orbital insertion of some kind, then an Earth orbital insertion, with maybe some kind of maneuver like a Hohmann transfer or a lower energy transfer.  Or it could be some kind of fly-by, without an Earth orbital insertion.  A lot depends on the delta-v budget, as it's called, i.e. the amount of fuel available and the thrust it produces.  Unless it's using some kind of solar sail, or other externally derived energy.  I think the video mentions some speculation about an object that is quite flat and thin, which happens briefly to have its reflecting face pointed at the Earth observatory. 

What's needed are more UAOs spotted and recorded, to maybe narrow down some of this meandering speculation.  Same old same old.