You know like how you can see a vampire but they don't reflect in a mirror?

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

damn, some people have no critical faculties whatsoever

Or maybe the "F" stands for somethinig else ?

1) meteors are not rare
2) there are plenty of videos/photos of "UFOs"
3) meteors don't have stealth capability, nor the ability to knock out electronic signals, unlike UFOs (do I have to add the sarcasm tag to this one?)

I suppose you've seen the wreckage. How different was this than the pictures of the Columbia?

Just saying.

Really?

Sid

You never cease. Not to amaze.

Then, he'd have had to have shot a lot of photos to make it appear to be at the same altitude. And then a bunch more photos to make it appear in the same orientation. Otherwise the series of images would look like your poster.

Here's a better image of Mr. Heflin's first photo:



Note the dust on the ground directly underneath the object is standing straight up. Of course, if we listen just to debunkers, that's hard evidence for some type of unknown phenomenon we wouldn't know about.

Those interested in learning more about this particular case, might want to read Ann Druffel's report in PDF format:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

I don't know what the thing is or represents. I do know it is an amazing universe and I encourage others to learn about it and all its phenomena, even that which is odd or alien or doesn't fit in with my own perspectives.

Ya hadda know this was gonna happen, Octa.

I sometimes wonder at the categorical rigidity one sometimes finds on the left. Weltanschauung über Alles.

in things that might be explained via science. Maybe odd isnt the correct word. On third thought, it is the perfect word.

maybe it is a remote controlled object from Earth?

It would be nice to be invaded by Barbershop Quartets.

Ridiculous, unaerodynamic design it may be.


And it casts no shadows. That PROVES it is real. ///sarcasm///

I see a line where nothing is growing

...can see that the object is at best 30 feet away from the camera, likely closer. The photo was shot with a fairly high shutter speed, stopping the motion, but as a result requiring the aperature to be open, causing depth of field blurring. The first telephone pole is in focus, the 2nd one is already starting to get blurry. The same can be seen of the grass.

If the object is that close, that makes it somewhere between the size of the pie plate and a hubcab.

I've worked a lot with radio. It's not unusual for them to cut in and out based upon a whole lot of factors.

Most UFO stories are a compendium of "unidivided middle" logical fallacy.

It reminded me SO much of one of the things we would do on the 4th of July...when I was about 13.

Get a stainless steel salad bowl, a cherry bomb...light the cherry, put the bowl over it and watch the bowl go up about 60 feet in the air....laugh like hell and do it again.

That would explain the dust. ????

Didn't you listen to anything your mama ever told you?

They'll stay that way!

Pulled off the road to watch it. I have had an open mind about them since. Have no idea what it was I saw.

or we would have much better technology than we do now. It hovered, it zig zagged and then shot off like a bullet and all with total silence.

The stealth fighter, F117A shown here below, was flying for almost 10 years before it was acknowledged. The flights were mostly at night.

but this was in the 70's and I have not seen anything like it so far. I really have no idea what it was.
Peace, Mojo

It was bloody big, at a high altitude and flew like things couldn't fly at the time.

A whole bunch of cars pulled over to the side of the road to watch it.

Somewhere near Woodstock, Ontario sometime in the late 1960's.

You are welocme, my friend.
Happy to help you learn something new.


Heflin's oddness and the persistent theme of trains and "toy wheels" resonated with me. And apparently it has with other researchers. In 2006, researcher John Scheldroup reported in the UFO Updates forum that his photo enhancement and diagramming found that "a wheel of a model steam locomotive" had accounted for the Heflin "spaceship." He noted that "you can just make out the wheel hub protruding of the face of the wheel." UFO enthusiast Kyle King had done a similar match-up using various older toy train wheels and superimposing them onto the Heflin UFO image, producing highly suggestive matches.

Still others have come to similar conclusions. Another researcher indicated that he had conducted a graphic analysis of the Heflin photos. He had secured a "O" Gauge model toy train wheel from a set of 3-Rail Andrews Trucks (Item #6033) by manufacturer Atlas O. He then digitally compared this toy train wheel with the Heflin "UFO" image using a Photoshop ImageReady animated gif program. He created a digital overlay comparison of the wheel unto the UFO image. It is not claimed that this is the very wheel Heflin had used, but it is highly persuasive that a toy wheel was just what the "UFO" was. The analyst adjusted the brightness and contrast and then applied a film grain filter for matching the two images. He indicates that he did not stretch or shrink the relative proportions of the "UFO" image to the train wheel image. Here are the striking results:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/10/ufos-that-never-were-classic-photos-now.html

Flying Spaghetti Monster behind the wheel in that too ?

THAT's how he gets around .... FLYING SAUCER !!!!

Thanks for the laugh ...

...demonstrated to be of Frisbee brand pie plates.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

-- Hamlet

often proven correct later and many of those people who smirked and laughed at them and belittled them, those who are finally subjected to absolute proof that they were incorrect, start saying things like, "Who would have believed...? Who'da thunk that...?" Witness the lack of WMD's in Iraq: millions of people protested and stated that there was absolutely no evidence of same and the media disregarded all of the logical arguments and went with Condi and Co. and then, after there weren't any, they said collectively, "Almost unbelievably, there are no WMD's in Iraq." And those of us who wrote letters and e-mails and exclaimed, "But we protested in the streets and demanded to see evidence which did not exist!", the Media, again collectively, said, "Look at that shiny object over there..."

If you don't like the analogy, and think it is specious, here's another one: man will never be able to fly. Or another: no one will ever be able to run a four-minute mile. Or another: The Earth is flat. Or even another: The Earth is the Center of the Universe.

Virtually everyone knew that all of those statements were "true". Everyone.

seems like a slightly offbeat kind of joy..

Fact of the matter is, that none of us are in any position to rule out distinct possibilities, and if someone presents evidence, then it should be noted and considered as part of a whole. The individual should not be

And here's the fun part, Sid: those of us who believe really don't give a crap that others don't believe. Not in our hearts we don't. Have your "fun"...we shall have the last laugh, if not in this generation, in a generation to come.

Why that is may have to do with authority. Remember the panic Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" caused on Halloween during the Depression? Now we've got television to help us see (or not).

If the phenomenon represents something real and tangible -- as the photos, videos, radar-visual cases, physical traces, and eyewitness reports indicate -- the government would face the troubling task of explaining to the public that there may be powers which the government can not defend the nation.

One of the most frightening examples I know of:

Sid

In all the years you've tried to make something negative stick to me, you haven't.

Show me where I've intentionally lied or presented information that was not true on DU. You haven't because you can't.

Go through my Journal on DU3 or DU2.

Yet, you continue to call me crazy, Conspiracy Theorist, and whatever other labels you use to define me and what I have written. I don't think that's puzzling, I find it most revealing about you.

to alien abductions. I don't want to see you run afoul if the TOS. DU would be a much less entertaining place without you.

Sid

I don't like your implied threats.

The TOS is pretty clear about Crazy Talk topics. Just ask SpiralHawk.

I've got no authority to do anything. I'd rather you didn't post something that crosses a line. Honestly.

Sid

nothin'

Got anything younger than 50 years old?

http://forgetomori.com/2010/ufos/trindade-island-case-photographer-admits-hoax/

Sid

From your link, siddithers:

In another twist of the story, a little more than a day after the TV show aired, Barauna’s niece, through Jose Americo Medeiros, states that she actually didn’t confirm the hoax. And while some are already suggesting the TV show concocted the whole thing, one has to take all these statements with due caution.


BTW: What about the Brazilian naval officers and crew who signed affidavits at the time? Were they all lying, too?

Octafish is posting in response to an OP.

So, would/should Dennis Kucinich be prohibited from posting on DU? He did, after all, say he saw a UFO.

Personally, I highly doubt we've ever been "visited" by ETs. In fact, I'm almost certain it's never happened, and probably never will. But am I willing to stake my life on that proposition?

Nope.

Sid

You working for someone in Wyoming, perhaps?

But, they aren't in Wyoming either, that's a red herring, like Roswell. They are in Maine.

Sid

Shaken any astronauts' hands?

Gotten to exchange words with one?

Corresponded with any astronauts?

How would you know they and their reports should be ridiculed?

....just remember every time you post your "opinions" that we're laughing at you not with you.

I welcome their scorn.



Sid

But I am embarrassed for you. Scorn is too easy and much too compassionate for how I feel about someone whose entire being seems to be about ridiculing others for not following your lock step closed minded stance, and for being so vituperative on a board meant for discussion. What you do is so clearly meant to squelch any discussion. What's a shame is that those, like you, who were once confined to the dungeon, are now out and about spreading your poison.

If you truly believe in your "mission", I feel sorry for you. If you are paid to do what you do (and it's hard for me to understand why you might be doing this otherwise) I feel contempt for you.

Sid

Is it part of your "duty"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=220722

In other words, "why can't you let me bullshit in peace!"

"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."-Octafish commenting on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672

Thanks for reminding me. When will you decide if Lee Harvey Oswald was a hero???

Both of whom obstructed justice in the investigation of President Kennedy's assassination.

Some reading for those interested in learning more about the assassination of President Kennedy:

The CIA and the JFK Assassination

Destruction of the Oswald Note

That's for starters. Anyone interested in learning more, please ask.

Those interested in laughing about the assassination of President Kennedy, please don't. You are on the wrong forum.

JFK assassination =
Your conspiracy "theories" =

By the way, I bet the Kennedy family doesn't believe Oswald was a hero.
And I bet almost all DUers don't think Oswald was a hero.

You have some mighty strange heroes, my friend!
Maybe it's you who is on the wrong board???

Robert Kennedy, Jr., and his sister, Rory Kennedy, told Charlie Rose that Jan. 11, 2013. That was the point of this thread:

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

That's what his son and daughter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rory Kennedy, reported in an interview with Charlie Rose last weekend in Dallas.



It's also what author and Salon founder David Talbot reported, when he called Robert F. Kennedy the "first conspiracy theorist" in 2007.

Here's why the news from Robert and Rory is so important:

The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father -- the president's principal counselor and the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- privately thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately, which is vital when considering the Mafia were hired by Allen Dulles and the CIA during Eisenhower's administration to murder Fidel Castro -- an operation which the CIA failed to inform the president and attorney general.

The interview with Charlie Rose marked the first time members of the immediate Kennedy family have voiced the attorney general's doubts about the Warren Commission and its lone gunman theory.

Those are the facts we learned Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. It's called history.

So, why do you spend so much time monitoring my posts, siddithers?

Have you ever posted anything against the BFEE's many treasons and corruptions -- from helping finance and arm Hitler to financing and arming Saddam and then lying America into war with Iraq by father and son presidents -- siddithers?

If so, please post a link.

I clicked on the link just for the hell of it and this is what I came up with:

"Sorry, We could not find www.knowyourbfeeufos.org

It may be unavailable or may not exist. Try using the suggestions or related links below, or search again using our web search."

I guess I could have tried Yahoo as the search engine suggested, but figured it would probably be a waste of time.

After the supposed fall of a meteorite in Connecticut in 1808, Thomas Jefferson is widely quoted to have stated, "It is easier to believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."

"Well, (the book title, 'Forbidden Science') refers to the fact that we are witnessing something very remarkable here. We live in an era where allegedly, science is above board, it's completely rational, it's completely open and it's looking at every possible subject. And yet, here we have evidence that when a group of scientists with the right background and the right degrees, try to study seriously certain subjects, they are ostracized by the rest of the scientific community. I think that from a sociological point of view, that's absolutely fascinating. That research on UFOs should be a forbidden science. It has all the elements where valuable research could be done. We have testimony from very serious and sincere witnesses. We have traces. We have physical elements. We have things that are well within the methodology of modern science and yet, we are not permitted to study it. Officially, we have all the power of the scientific method." -- Dr. Jacques Vallee

SOURCE: http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/ForbiddenScience.htm

"I don’t think there is such a thing as “the flying saucer phenomenon.” I think it has three components and we have to deal with them in different ways.

First, there is a physical object. That may be a flying saucer or it may be a projection or it may be something entirely different. All we know about it is that it represents a tremendous quantity of electromagnetic energy in a small volume. I say that based upon the evidence gathered from traces, from electromagnetic and radar detection and from perturbations of the electromagnetic fields such as Dr. Claude Poher, the French space scientist, has recorded.

Second, there’s the phenomenon the witnesses perceive. What they tell us is that they’ve seen a flying saucer. Now they may have seen that or they may have seen an image of a flying saucer or they may have hallucinated it under the influence of microwave radiation, or any of a number of things may have happened. The fact is that the witnesses were exposed to an event and as a result they experienced a highly complex alteration of perception which caused them to describe the object or objects that figure in their testimony.

Beyond those — the physical phenomenon and the perception phenomenon — we have the third component, the social phenomenon. That’s what happens when the reports are submitted to society and enter the cultural arena. That’s the part which I find most interesting."

SOURCE: http://integralnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/jacques-vallees-integral-approach-to.html

PS: Thank you, David Zephyr! Strange to think of what the future would hold without free thinkers and people who respect one another's ideas and perceptions.

and telling us how great they are???

As evinced by your posts, your interests seem to side with providing plausible deniability to the national security state.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - Shaw

Even if there are alien craft in other locations in the universe, there is absolutely ZERO 'definitive' evidence they have ever visited here .... Grainy, vague, unfocused images from human beings notwithstanding ....

To chastise a reasonable, skeptical person for disbelief in something that has no absolute basis in fact, is ludicrous ....

The argument that "Flying Saucers must exist, because people once said, "man will never be able to fly" ? .... Really ? ... that is your argument in support of Flying Saucer belief ? ....

Tell you what : provide incontrovertible evidence that Flying Saucers exist IN FACT, and you will convince us skeptics ...

Until then - Respect skepticism .... It's more grounded and centered than UFO fantasy ....

So you probably did it subconsciously ...

you converted a statement against "woo woo" into a statement against "opinions" ....

Why did you do that? ... Where did I come out in opposition to opinions?

Did I say it was bad to have opinions?

Did I say you (or anybody else) could not have an opinion?

Say one opinion was "the hungry should be fed" ... Am I against that opinion?

If the opinion was "the hungry should be imprisoned", would you still support all opinions?

Because of your misdirection, you have blurred the line between. the frame of the message, and the message itself ... Don't worry, it happens all the time ...

I am against opinions that are based on fallacious premises ...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam ... Appeal to Ignorance

One can have an opinion that something exists in the absence of direct evidence of that existence, but such an opinion would be founded purely on a fallacious premise, since there is no accepted, direct evidence of a visitation by an extraterrestrial nature ....

Not only do I reject the opinion, but I support those who reject that opinion ... That is why I entered into this conversation to begin with.

It is quite rational to disbelieve opinions that assert belief in a thing that has no direct, empirical support to sustain belief ....

Feel free to have opinions that I disbelieve ... Don't ever think I would try to take that away from you ..