The Real Flying Saucers - Channel 5 9.00pm 16/6/04

The Real Flying Saucers - Channel 5 9.00pm 16/6/04

The premise of this programme was to suggest that the U.S. military
are involved in the promotion of belief in UFO's to create a
smokescreen for their own secret technology. I will go along with the
first part of that premise but the secret technology bit I'm less
certain about, and what really interests me in these debunking
programmes is the internal logic which starts to tie itself in knots
in it's attempts to keep the thrust of it's arguement going. However I
make no judgements on the validity of the information presented.
OK so it rather controversially suggests that what Arnold saw, which
kick started the whole UFO movement and coined the phrase 'Flying
Saucers', were not clouds or geese or whatever in odd lighting
conditions. But they were what Arnold said they were - UFO's, albeit
of terrestial Russian design. This then interestingly, refutes a
whole host of sceptics of various denominations, nationalities over
the last fifty years or so, who've pontificated on this particular
famous sighting, many of whom I assume having no connections with the
American military. Thanks for that one, because that enables me to
cast doubt on all the rest of these sceptic's elaborate explanations
for UFO sightings in general,
But let's look at that claim that what Arnold saw was supposedly
made by the Russians. Now I'm no engineer but I kinda get the feeling
that a round object might be a bit unstable, but these UFO's flew in
formation, avoiding any radar all the way from Russia... quite a feat
and all made with 1940's technology ! Now this is something the
Americans tried to do with 50 - 60's technology and couldn't get it
off the ground and nobody has, so far as we know it, done so since.
However if the Russians did manage to do it, what have they also
done with it since ? Such a technological advance would have given
them a tremendous miltary advantage during the cold war. And surely we
would have discovered by now that Flying Saucers emanate from Russia
and once the secret was out, Russia would have been proud to show off
it's technological prowess to the rest of the world.
So concerning man made flying saucers, there's nothing, zilch, no
evidence to reliably show flying saucers have ever worked, in fact the
opposite is true. This programme's featured U.S. experiments suggest
that Flying Saucer design is a none starter. This absence of any
reliable proof that man made saucers exist at all was the reason why
they had to, somewhere in the programme, point to some famous sighting
and suggest that the UFO was real (but terrestial) and thus 'proving'
within the programme the reality of the man made flying saucer.
The programme's logic also drove it to find other 'proofs' that
there were other weird man made objects out there, besides flying
saucers, to explain for the multiplicity of UFO phenomena. So they
found some expert to argue that the famous Gulf Breeze sightings were
man made objects. But in doing so they have suggested that US military
deliberately and irresponsibly put on a display for the witnesses many
times over. Allowing them to take many pictures and videos of them and
leading them to believe that some kind of extra terrestial contact had
occurred. Infiltrating the Ufological commnity to muddy the water is
'OKish' if there are 'reasons of national security' to do so. But
this, if true, was wreckless and was cruelly messing with people's
minds.
And if that's what the US military and intelligence have been up to
over the last century then we are wandering into areas of human rights
abuse and in the litigation culture of the U.S. ......... somebody
might sue !
''I was duped into believing in ET's by the American government and so
I gave all my money to Space Brothers Inc''
Now that's one court case I wanna see.
Clive
http://www.geocities.com/clivemcgee/index.html
P.S. Yes I won't argue that triangular UFO's might have been the F-117
stealth fighter.
First we had circles, triangles......so what next, squares ?

snip

I too saw this program... whilst I don't think any potential
extra-terrestrial visitors would be stupid enough to fly into our atmosphere
to take a closer look (I mean come on, if they have the technology to
traverse space presumeably fast enough to make it here and back within a
lifetime, then they should also have the tech to observe from a great
distance) the program didn't really put a good argument across IMO.

P.S. Yes I won't argue that triangular UFO's might have been the F-117
stealth fighter.

Good

First we had circles, triangles......so what next, squares ?

Resistance is Futile

Tony

"Tony Pottrell" wrote in message
...

snip

I too saw this program... whilst I don't think any potential
extra-terrestrial visitors would be stupid enough to fly into our
atmosphere
to take a closer look (I mean come on, if they have the technology to
traverse space presumeably fast enough to make it here and back within a
lifetime, then they should also have the tech to observe from a great
distance) the program didn't really put a good argument across IMO.

P.S. Yes I won't argue that triangular UFO's might have been the F-117
stealth fighter.

Good

First we had circles, triangles......so what next, squares ?

Resistance is Futile

Tony



I had to mentally check it was not April 1st.
According to the prog, Skoda made the world's first flying saucer.
Everything else I could have sort of bought.
What was the name of the designer something like Korona ?

"N Cook" wrote in message ...

"Tony Pottrell" wrote in message
...

snip

I too saw this program... whilst I don't think any potential
extra-terrestrial visitors would be stupid enough to fly into our
atmosphere
to take a closer look (I mean come on, if they have the technology to
traverse space presumeably fast enough to make it here and back within a
lifetime, then they should also have the tech to observe from a great
distance) the program didn't really put a good argument across IMO.

P.S. Yes I won't argue that triangular UFO's might have been the F-117
stealth fighter.

Good

First we had circles, triangles......so what next, squares ?

Resistance is Futile

Tony



I had to mentally check it was not April 1st.
According to the prog, Skoda made the world's first flying saucer.
Everything else I could have sort of bought.
What was the name of the designer something like Korona ?



It was quite comical. However, the theory is similar to that of a helicopter, prior to which,
people who saw the test flights must have wondered what the hell it was. Traversing light years,
no, I don't think so, but hovering, yes, we do it almost every minute of every day. Bolt on a body
kit to a Blackhawk and voila, a flying saucer...

The magnetic UFO's had me in stitches. But I won't go into it. Maglev, no probs - lifting
kilotonnes and buzzing cars on the roads, ha ha ha. *Only* in America!

Perhaps "they" are preparing us for either the public introduction to the aliens who have lived
amongst us for decades (no, honestly) or the post X-prize rapid advances in tech that will allow us
to go back to the moon

Cheers
--
K.

BASICALLY THEY SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT WITH LIES
A few years back BBC showed a documentary on the Russian aircraft
developments since WW2 nothing was held back they showed failures as well as
disasters, the flying wing which could be mistaken for a saucer at certain
angles, and the other item they displayed was a disc type construction,
but did not work the same as a flying saucer with down draft creating lift,
but with normal forward drive and lift.
But again the stability of the design held back development.
They also stated in this program that these were at the time of making the
program still in existence being kept in hangers.
............../////////////////////////////////////////
"Clive" wrote in message
om...
The Real Flying Saucers - Channel 5 9.00pm 16/6/04

The premise of this programme was to suggest that the U.S. military
are involved in the promotion of belief in UFO's to create a
smokescreen for their own secret technology. I will go along with the
first part of that premise but the secret technology bit I'm less
certain about, and what really interests me in these debunking
programmes is the internal logic which starts to tie itself in knots
in it's attempts to keep the thrust of it's arguement going. However I
make no judgements on the validity of the information presented.
OK so it rather controversially suggests that what Arnold saw, which
kick started the whole UFO movement and coined the phrase 'Flying
Saucers', were not clouds or geese or whatever in odd lighting
conditions. But they were what Arnold said they were - UFO's, albeit
of terrestial Russian design. This then interestingly, refutes a
whole host of sceptics of various denominations, nationalities over
the last fifty years or so, who've pontificated on this particular
famous sighting, many of whom I assume having no connections with the
American military. Thanks for that one, because that enables me to
cast doubt on all the rest of these sceptic's elaborate explanations
for UFO sightings in general,
But let's look at that claim that what Arnold saw was supposedly
made by the Russians. Now I'm no engineer but I kinda get the feeling
that a round object might be a bit unstable, but these UFO's flew in
formation, avoiding any radar all the way from Russia... quite a feat
and all made with 1940's technology ! Now this is something the
Americans tried to do with 50 - 60's technology and couldn't get it
off the ground and nobody has, so far as we know it, done so since.
However if the Russians did manage to do it, what have they also
done with it since ? Such a technological advance would have given
them a tremendous miltary advantage during the cold war. And surely we
would have discovered by now that Flying Saucers emanate from Russia
and once the secret was out, Russia would have been proud to show off
it's technological prowess to the rest of the world.
So concerning man made flying saucers, there's nothing, zilch, no
evidence to reliably show flying saucers have ever worked, in fact the
opposite is true. This programme's featured U.S. experiments suggest
that Flying Saucer design is a none starter. This absence of any
reliable proof that man made saucers exist at all was the reason why
they had to, somewhere in the programme, point to some famous sighting
and suggest that the UFO was real (but terrestial) and thus 'proving'
within the programme the reality of the man made flying saucer.
The programme's logic also drove it to find other 'proofs' that
there were other weird man made objects out there, besides flying
saucers, to explain for the multiplicity of UFO phenomena. So they
found some expert to argue that the famous Gulf Breeze sightings were
man made objects. But in doing so they have suggested that US military
deliberately and irresponsibly put on a display for the witnesses many
times over. Allowing them to take many pictures and videos of them and
leading them to believe that some kind of extra terrestial contact had
occurred. Infiltrating the Ufological commnity to muddy the water is
'OKish' if there are 'reasons of national security' to do so. But
this, if true, was wreckless and was cruelly messing with people's
minds.
And if that's what the US military and intelligence have been up to
over the last century then we are wandering into areas of human rights
abuse and in the litigation culture of the U.S. ......... somebody
might sue !
''I was duped into believing in ET's by the American government and so
I gave all my money to Space Brothers Inc''
Now that's one court case I wanna see.
Clive
http://www.geocities.com/clivemcgee/index.html
P.S. Yes I won't argue that triangular UFO's might have been the F-117
stealth fighter.
First we had circles, triangles......so what next, squares ?

"Tony Pottrell" wrote in message . ..
snip

I too saw this program... whilst I don't think any potential
extra-terrestrial visitors would be stupid enough to fly into our atmosphere
to take a closer look (I mean come on, if they have the technology to
traverse space presumeably fast enough to make it here and back within a
lifetime, then they should also have the tech to observe from a great
distance) the program didn't really put a good argument across IMO.

Very sensible post IMO!

We use our visual senses every waking moment. Honed over our
lifetime's experience to instantly recognise anything and everything
we see.

A tipsy man in a Father Xmas suit, wearing a John Major mask hanging
from a high-rise balcony. A 100 foot aero-generator windmill blade on
detached low-loaders seen passing overhead on a motorway bridge. A
recumbant bicycle in metalised-cloth streamlining, seen fleetingly
between passing lorries. A burning No49 bus sliding along on its side
still covered in illuminated reindeer and flashing lights after
hitting an oil spill on a sharp corner at Christmas. A rocker in a
long, flowing, blond wig and gold lamé suit and matching metallic
gold, horned helmet on a fully chromed tricycle with aero engine motor
leaving a cloud of tyre smoke in a sleepy village on a Sunday morning
in thick mist. All are instantly recognisable for what they are.
Nobody could deny the accuracy of the dscription. Though they might
smile at the image conjured up by that description.

Why do we attach such a stigma and such silly pre-conditions to the
observation of an oddly behaving, oddly shaped object in the sky? Why
on earth do we automatically attach "alien spacecraft" to the slightly
confused description of witnesses? As they struggle to use their
everyday vocabulary to describe their unusual sighting.

If a real flying saucer landed at Wembley Stadium during a match.
Probably 99.9% of the sober witnesses to this unusual event. Would use
their visual skills to quickly confirm the form, surface finish and
behaviour of the craft as normal visual reality. Only if it performed
impossible feats by human standards. Such as becoming translucent,
invisible or shape-changed would the object become slightly unreal to
most of the witnesses. But their eyes would still follow these odd
changes and contortions as best they could with the built-up skills of
their own lifetime's experience. It would not become something else as
result of these changes. It would remain a "UFO" that had decided to
land in a crowded stadium.

Nobody could deny the reality of the object seen. Even if it became
invisible before their eyes and left no evidential trace. Why would TV
watchers at home believe what we saw on the TV cameras that were
filming the match before the unusual interruption to play?
We see special effects every day on TV films. Why wouldn't we think
"special effects"? How would we discern that it was reality and not a
science fiction film? Because of our visual recognition skills. The
cues would not be present for a fictional film. The observing
conditions would remain real despite the presence of a possible alien
craft sitting on, or hovering above, the grass.

So why would you question the reliability of a single witness to such
an event? They would be using their recognition & visual skills in the
same way as they always do. It is only the pre-attached,
pre-conditions of "UFO" and "aliens" (that we automatically and
mentally attribute to the description) that makes us doubt the true
nature of their observation.

The rarity of good quality, believable images of UFOs suggest that
they are indeed unusual. With so many people carrying still and video
cameras these days. Why aren't there literally thousands of sharp UFO
images in the public domain?

What the witness to a UFO sighting sees is real enough in their long
experience of recognising objects in everyday life. Whether they are
moving or still. Flying or swimming. Falling or rising. Rolling or
tumbling. We recognise the object as being of similar substance and
form as any other physical object within our own concept of visual
reality based on long experience.

Only the fine detail makes it unusual. Different from the norm. Yet we
pre-judge every sighting. Despite not having been present. If it was a
sober police officer on duty. Then it was more believable than if it
was a tipsy dustman sighting the object on his way home from a
lunchtime drink. If it was a pilot it makes the chances more likely
that it was a real object. If it was a fighter pilot with radar
confirmation we attach yet more points to the accuracy of the
observation.
But we still remain sceptical! I know I do. Unless we see the object
with our own eyes. We simply do not believe it. And when we do see
something unusual. Nobody else believes US! :-)

Why?

Chris.B

"Chris.B" wrote in message om...
"Tony Pottrell" wrote in message
. ..
snip

I too saw this program... whilst I don't think any potential
extra-terrestrial visitors would be stupid enough to fly into our atmosphere
to take a closer look (I mean come on, if they have the technology to
traverse space presumeably fast enough to make it here and back within a
lifetime, then they should also have the tech to observe from a great
distance) the program didn't really put a good argument across IMO.

Very sensible post IMO!

We use our visual senses every waking moment. Honed over our
lifetime's experience to instantly recognise anything and everything
we see.


My honed sense wasn't much cop then I urinated on the floor instead on in the pan last weekend (OK,
I was blootered, but you can't always trust the ol' senses...)



Cheers
--
K.

"Chris.B" wrote:

CB Why do we attach such a stigma and such silly
CB pre-conditions to the observation of an oddly behaving,
CB oddly shaped object in the sky? Why on earth do we
CB automatically attach "alien spacecraft" to the slightly
CB confused description of witnesses?

Because of silly documentaries. :-o

Here's a radio show on that very subject:
http://www.seti.org/audio/archives/1_11_04edited.mp3

But it's not just media brain-washing that is to blame. Very often
these days people feel lost and small in the global village we
have created. We want to feel special again, so we like to
imagine that we are so special that alien races from all over
the Galaxy will travel to Earth to see us. In that sense, we
project our hopes onto that alien spacecraft, er, unidentified
object. To think that the object is anything other than an
alien spacecraft is too mundane, too much like everyday life.
After all, 60 million Americans believe that such objects are
alien spacecraft. I guess that means they are a sure thing,
right? ;-)))))))))

"Ed" @ wrote in message ...


But it's not just media brain-washing that is to blame. Very often
these days people feel lost and small in the global village we
have created. We want to feel special again, so we like to
imagine that we are so special that alien races from all over
the Galaxy will travel to Earth to see us. In that sense, we
project our hopes onto that alien spacecraft, er, unidentified
object. To think that the object is anything other than an
alien spacecraft is too mundane, too much like everyday life.
After all, 60 million Americans believe that such objects are
alien spacecraft. I guess that means they are a sure thing,
right? ;-)))))))))

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Life today seems truly awful
in comparison with simpler, earlier times. A terrifying inertia
affects our ability to change the corrupt political, economic and
religious system. That many consider has completely failed us on the
endless road to equality, comfort and universal happiness.
So we look over the heads of "the system". Hoping for quick salvation
from their endless misdeeds in the name of greed and self. But that is
getting even further off-topic.

We have to ask ourselves why these odd flying objects are so rarely
imaged. Despite the millions of camera-carrying tourists in recent
times.
Could it simply be that they do not actually exist in our own
"dimension"? But really belong in another closely parallel one. Have
the normally "opaque" walls between our dimensions "thinned" for a
short time?
This might also cover such things as ghosts and other unexplained
phenomena. Is this 'crazy' idea any less logical than believing aliens
from another system are watching us from flying discs and triangles?
That would surely make us the inhabitants of a rather large and
complex zoo? Initially interesting, but who'd want to watch the whole
series back home on TV? Particularly the disgusting breeding rituals!
;-)

Chris.B

(Chris.B) wrote:

But we still remain sceptical! I know I do. Unless we see the object
with our own eyes. We simply do not believe it. And when we do see
something unusual. Nobody else believes US! :-)

Why?

Chris.B

I know why - but you wouldn't believe me.
--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47