UFO designs point inevitably toward hoax and/or terrestrial production

I think it's interesting this broadsheet about the Nuremberg incident is released the same year as a similar incident over Basel, Switzerland is reported. Of course, it could just be a coincidence.

reply to post by internos


Ah Internos - I could kiss you! Great minds think alike ;-)

I was about to bring up the the Nuremburg woodcut:
*Cylinders
*Lights
*Circular objects
*Trianglular shapes
In other words - almost the whole gamut of reported generic UFO shapes!

Lets go back a little further to the classical period, where we hear of 'two great silver shields' buzzing and spitting fire at Alexander the Great and his army as they attempted a river crossing in 329BCE.

And let's not forget Ezechiel's Wheel

So we see myriad shapes throughout history that are naturally interpreted through the eyes of "conventional" understanding. But it doesn't mean they are the only shapes at a given time.

Kudos to my old friend Internos for the poignant woodcuts

Addendum: interesting to note the close proximity of the two woodcut dates: 1561 for Nuremburg/1566 for Basel

Addendum2: Sorry DoomsdayRex, I missed your making the same point in your above post.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by mckyle]

Aerial fireworks were making their first appearances in Europe around the time. Looking at the descriptions in terms of rockets, roman candles, and airbursts makes it hard to deny the similarities.

Originally posted by Phage
Aerial fireworks were making their first appearances in Europe around the time. Looking at the descriptions in terms of rockets, roman candles, and airbursts makes it hard to deny the similarities.

Indeed!

But does that suggest the woodcuts are a recording of a pyrotechnic display, or does it suggest a visual interpretation of a rather different display, based on what was 'conventional' during this period?

I have no doubt that back then in Europe, a pyrotechnics display would have been perceived by many, as surreal to say the least.

One wonders.


[edit on 23-12-2009 by mckyle]

Originally posted by jeddun
and now finally..on into the ethereal digital age of 'no boundaries' we see an even MORE illogical 'ship' shape of just flying lights, like something from a sci-fi film....like where would they even sit? lol.

This is hardly a thing from our particular digital era only... lights and groups of lights where reported well before now... in fact to me the UFO shape has been technically very consistent.

Usually some sort of disc (this would include every thing from the M&M shaped craft to the cupola variety, ie the vertical axis is alot less then the horizontal), cylinders (including the elongated sphere), tear drops, perfect spheres and triangles or diamonds... while the external additions might change such as landing legs, tripods, landing pods, windows, no windows, some seams, no seams... overall id say UFO shapes have been extremely consistent to the point you could almost start to classify them into groups that could be species specific, and all the base shapes are still regularly witnessed.

As to where'd they sit in a ball of light... just because all you see is a ball of light from a mile away doesnt mean that ball of light doesnt have substance. Heck hundreds of reports past and present describe solid metal craft that when air born take on a nimbus or turn into a strong glowing light... not seeing a craft, and only a light doesnt mean the craft isnt there.

I suppose this old case is a point in case... a rather ethereal digital illogical type ship from the mid 70's, with morphing lights and heck even with a reverse 'stacking' (merging) as well.

Canary Island sighting

Also its funny how people have forgotten the fact that these craft could/would/might travel in formation... it used to be a very regular type of report seeing multiply craft traveling in triangular formation... these groups of lights with no form, modern, sightings might be nothing but people seeing the standard smaller glowing metal craft in formation, not some big invisible craft with a number of lights showing.

Oh and Billy Meir is a fraud, so his cake stacking craft would also be in that basket of unreal. However there are a good number of reports that indicate docking or merging of craft... so the idea isnt without some merit, since he hardly 'witnessed' it first.

As to the occupants... people have and still do report the entire range... and as to the 'rocker' aliens (which im assuming your meaning human), heck they where being seen back far longer than the time frame the OP gives them... If anything to me the fact you have waves of one type appearing more often then others over a period is rather convincing evidence that groups of a particular species are turning up, doing what ever they need then leaving to where ever until next time. The fact we now have a prominently 'Grey' presence for quite some time would also lead credence to some sort of 'this lot decided to stay' scenario which ties in well with the 'DUMB's theory.

So yeah I dont agree with the OP, if anything I see the opposite, any sort of research into historic and present cases shows that UFO design has been surprisingly consistent... does that mean none are human tech, of course not, some most definitely are... but it sure aint proof the UFO's arent alien in origin. OP's theory isnt with out some merit... it just doesnt really hold up when you look at all the cases we have.

reply to post by BigfootNZ


Well said BigfootNZ


I thank the OP for generating an interesting point to discuss. However, I think he could have supported his argument more with specific timelines involving cases.

Jeddum: If you're still confident about your argument, then perhaps you could break down the salient encounters from the 1940's listing the cases that support your argument for each decade up until and including this one.

It doesn't mean you'll sway people, but it would be harder to dismiss your post out of hand.

Just a suggestion and thanks again for generating this thread


[edit on 23-12-2009 by mckyle]

One good point made by the OP is that people get influenced by facts.
This can't be denied.
Arnold himself described them as flying discs or flying saucer, what he did saw wasn't exactly saucer-shaped



And, VERY interesting detail, an extremely similar object was photographed by William Rhodes from Phoenix, AZ on July 7, 1947: the same day of the Roswell's crash

1947-July 7- William Rhodes of Phoenix, Arizona allegedly saw a disk circling his locality during sunset and took two photographs. The resulting pictures show a disk-like object with a round front and a square tail in plan form. These photographs have been examined by experts who state they are true photographic images and do not appear to be imperfection in the emulsion or imperfections in the lens. Often called the "Roswell UFO." some info taken from: www.nicap.org

www.ufocasebook.com...

These images, often called "the Roswell craft" photos, (as it is widely reported that the Roswell craft was not a saucer, but a "delta" winged craft) appeared in several Southwestern newspapers around the time of Arnold's sighting and match his basic description of a heel shaped, domed flyer; These images were photographed the same day as the Roswell crash which took place in the evening of July 7, 1947, just one state away, in New Mexico.

www.rense.com...

Although the reliability isn’t quite as high as the pictures taken in McMinnville, two shots taken in Phoenix do rank right up there. William A. Rhodes, a self-employed scientist living in Phoenix, reported that he had taken what might be considered the first good photographs of one of the flying discs. Rhodes said he had been on his way to his workshop at the rear of his house at the rear of his house when he heard a distinctive "whoosh" that he believed to be from a P-80 "Shooting Star" fighter jet. He grabbed his camera from the workshop bench and hurried to a small mount in his backyard. The object was circling in the east about a thousand feet in the air.

www.theufochronicles.com...

On July 7, 1947, William Rhodes took photos of an unusual object over Phoenix, Arizona.[45] The photos appeared in a Phoenix newspaper and a few other papers. According to documents from Project Bluebook, an Army counter-intelligence (CIC) agent and an FBI agent interviewed Rhodes on August 29 and convinced him to surrender the negatives. The CIC agent deliberately concealed his true identity, leaving Rhodes to believe both men were from the FBI. Rhodes said he wanted the negatives back, but when he turned them into the FBI the next day, he was informed he wouldn't be getting them back, though Rhodes later tried unsuccessfully.[46][47] The photos were extensively analyzed and would eventually show up in some classified Air Force UFO intelligence reports.

www.thepetitionsite.com...

(can't open Project Blue Book website right now)
www.roswellproof.com...

UNIDENTIFIABLE OBJECTS,
WILLIAMS FIELD, CHANDLER,
ARIZONA.

14 July 1947

MEMORANDUM FOR THE OFFICER IN CHARGE:

On 8 July 1947, this Agent obtained pictures of unidentifiable objects, (Exhibits 1 and 2) from the managing editor of the Arizona Republic newspaper. The pictures were taken by Mr. Williams Rhoads, 4333 N. 14th St., Phoenix, Arizona, at sunset, on 7 July 1947. The subject object flew at unconveivable speeds, making three circles in the vicinity of Mr Rhoads' home. The pictures were taken with a box camera, size 620. The photograph (Exhibit 1) was taken at as the object passed in front of Mr. Rhodes, and Exhibit 2 as the object turned towards Mr. Rhoads. The height of the object was estimated at 1000 feet.

AGENT'S NOTES: See Exhibit 1 and 2, photographs of unifentifiable objects, enlarged aproximately 20 times. No further reports have been received by this office of objects seen by military personnel.

Lynn C. Aldrich, Special Agent, EIC - AAF, FDTRC.

www.rr0.org...


www.rr0.org...



Maybe the incidents were unrelated, but there's at least a very interesting resembleance as well as the dates were extremely close each other.

Originally posted by jeddun
we could just as easily support the notion of trolls and goblins as for centuries we believed JUST that.
[edit on 23-12-2009 by jeddun]

I for one support the notion of trolls and goblins, but I support the notion in the context of inaccurate reporting by ignorant, highly superstitious god fearing people who would not, could not ever imagine that these “goblins and trolls” may have originated on other worlds rather than the pits of hell.

My own opinion is that ET has been with us for a very long time and that we may have fallen into the rules of ET’s game (globalisation) without realising it because it was a game started long before we could walk.

Our own arrogance and our modern ignorance’s combined with a ridiculous sense of our own importance feeds an already overinflated ego and keeps us closed to the very real possibility that we are a “kept” people, serving a regressive ET intelligence.

Have you ever had the feeling that greed and stepping on the small man to get ahead feels alien in concept? It might literally be an alien concept.

Originally posted by internos
One good point made by the OP is that people get influenced by facts.
This can't be denied.

A good point mate

There certainly is something to be said for 'group-thought', and I have no doubt that some sightings were heavily influenced - either directly or indirectly - by black projects of the time.

Whilst I believe that Kenneth Arnold's sighting was in all likelihood, a genuine phenomena, one can't ignore that resemblance to the captured Horten (Ho 229 & Parabola) bomber (see below).

Horten 229



Horten Parabola



Kenneth Arnold UFO




Now at the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself, I'll reiterate. Whilst I think the Arnold sighting was in all probability a legitimate phenomena, I have no doubt that perhaps many of the sightings during that period and onwards, were based on sightings of actual black projects.

I think in part, that was the rationale for Project Bluebook. But that's another story.

reply to post by internos


Unfortunately mate, I have to guess at the images you've posted, as more and more image and video sights are banned over here

Notwithstanding, I can recall most of the material you're referring to, and they're good examples that highlight the nuisance variables with most sightings.

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67

Our own arrogance and our modern ignorance’s combined with a ridiculous sense of our own importance feeds an already overinflated ego and keeps us closed to the very real possibility that we are a “kept” people, serving a regressive ET intelligence.

Have you ever had the feeling that greed and stepping on the small man to get ahead feels alien in concept? It might literally be an alien concept.

I like the cut of your jib SJ

Like most religions, we assume a better and enlightened destiny ahead - the same can be said for the many who desperately await contact!

Thing is, I seem to recall the film, Independence Day having a slightly different encounter to that of the warm alien embrace posited in Close Encounters!

Originally posted by jeddun

UFOs seem to change in design just as our views on design and aerodynamics do?

...

Then when the 50s came we see UFOS trimming down (the saucer shape) as well as rising up into 'wedding cake' and 'spinning top' shapes?

then on into the 70s and 80s we see a resurgence of reports in and around military bases of a triangular shape.....hmn round the time we were developing stealth tech it seems.

and now finally..on into the ethereal digital age of 'no boundaries' we see an even MORE illogical 'ship' shape of just flying lights, like something from a sci-fi film....like where would they even sit? lol.

anyone ever think about this? ever?

I really must agree with you on this one. UFO designs have seemed to change quite a bit in the years. I also find that very strange. Although the saucer style UFO seems to be relatively untouched.

Originally posted by Cigar
UFO designs have seemed to change quite a bit in the years. I also find that very strange. Although the saucer style UFO seems to be relatively untouched.

I would use the word 'varied' as opposed to changed.

Change suggests a transformation of subject material, and I don't believe that is the case.

reply to post by internos


What is so strange about the wing 'cockpit' is that the Hudson
Valley wing sighting had a similar 'cockpit' glowing ruby red.
The ether engine glow is the only answer to the propulsion and
not some ruby crystal anti gravity as I'm sure was proposed
long ago by someone.

Keep in mind that excepting a few orbiting craft and space faring vehicles, all of our aircraft are built with aerodynamics and gravity in mind. In space, a giant flat rectangle of a craft with the same thrust as a needle-shaped craft will travel at the same speed. They are not limited by our confines. So quite possible to see a wide variety, I'd think. Not to mention we are assuming one or even 2 or 3 races are visiting us. For all we know, dozens come to pay us a friendly visit every year, each having their own designs.

Also to keep in mind: Why would such amazing craft crash? That is another question. Well, if they are typically space faring, and do not normally need to worry about air resistance and gravity and all those inconveniences, when they do enter an atmosphere, they are possibly fully reliant on their propulsion to keep them aloft. If there are any issues (i.e. if any really are gravity based for example), that could explain why such amazing craft actually crash like a common plane.

Sure basically the UFO works everywhere.
Works on whatever is left in between the air atoms and
extends into outer space.
Thus the bright when fast or in the upper atmosphere (NASA video).

Originally posted by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
And how am I mischaracterizing the skeptics position.... I am simply stating that it is invalid to state that ALL UFO's must be of terrestrial origin.

You're arching the argument into your favor by making the choices seem split between "All UFOs are aliens" and "Only some UFOs are aliens", by discounting the possibility of "All UFOs are terrestrial" as delusional. You've got a closed mind, and I'd argue, a mind just as illogical as you claim the skeptic's to be.

A mind that's open to all possibilities doesn't necessarily have to give each possibility equal weight. While I'm open to the possibility of UFOs being alien, I see it as much less likely than terrestrial craft, misidentifications, and sometimes simply delusion (in the non-derogatory "sometimes people see things that aren't there because it's a naturally occurring phenomenon in the brain" sense).

It's possible that I'm the only person made entirely of pudding. You don't know, so you can't rule it out, but is it likely? No. But by your logic, the possibility should be held on equal footing with the possibility that I'm just a normal, everyday, fleshy human.

The one of the Horten PARABOLA was an extremely questionable theory:
The Horten parabola, had no motorization, and was designed only for high altitude flights. Because of the curved shape, it was very difficult to construct it, so only one prototype was finished, The aircraft warped severely during winter storage, and was burned and scrapped without ever being flown.
First, we should explain the presence of a german EXPERIMENTAL airplane in the US skies (but this could have happened though, since the scenario was crazy at the time): so the story is that one TOY (because if you look carefully at it, it wasn't more than a TOY at the time) caused the sighting by Kenneth Arnold in 1947. I disagree with this explanation, but i state it is good one. WRONG, but good.


[edit on 24/12/2009 by internos]

Some of the OP's questions have been adressed but I think this is a prudent video.

It's David Sereda, I don't know much about the guy and I can't tell you if he's legit or not (I like him though), at any rate he has some cool ideas about propulsion and why you would see lights and translucent discs.

Google Video Link

If the embed doesn't work

video.google.com...#

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Mr Headshot]

reply to post by internos


Sorry old friend,

I didn't explain myself well at all regarding my Horten pics above.

Whilst you correctly state the demise of the Parabola prior to wars end, I feel we can safely assume that along with the captured Horten 229 by the US towards the end of the conflict, that a mother load of IP and technical data was also procured.

I don't think for a second that by the time of 1947, US black projects had a Horten-derived craft capable of flying past Kenneth Arnold at 1500 km/h! No way!

What I do think is possible, is that through the ensuing decades, black projects derived or influenced from the shapes of former Nazi projects (refer here for a National Geographic article on the "Nazi Stealth Bomber") , were flying at perhaps prototype level. And with this came the inevitable mistaken sightings by members of the public.

Of course, I can't prove it.

So to reiterate: I do believe Kenneth Arnold saw a legitimate aerial phenomena that day, that clerly demonstrated a performance envelope outside the capabilitites of any conventional or exotic aircraft possessed by the US, or the Soviets in 1947.

Again, sorry for the confusion mate. I was thinking a lot more than I was actually typing in


[edit on 24-12-2009 by mckyle]