A Compelling Question About UFOs

reply to post by stander


I didn't see anything around that specifically 'made' it do anything at all. Flew silently and slowly right over my house, pretty low. It remained in a kind of cloaked form while the leading 'V' edge was distinctly illuminated with a kind of purple glow/corona discharge. And I'm pretty sure I know why they did it. It had to do with a very personal event/experience prior to this sighting.

Also, my wife has had her own sightings in which she described their unique flight characteristics.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Flux8]

Originally posted by Flux8
reply to post by stander

 

I didn't see anything around that specifically 'made' it do anything at all. Flew silently and slowly right over my house, pretty low. It remained in a kind of cloaked form while the leading 'V' edge was distinctly illuminated with a kind of purple glow/corona discharge. And I'm pretty sure I know why they did it. It had to do with a very personal event/experience prior to this sighting.

Also, my wife has had her own sightings in which she described their unique flight characteristics.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Flux8]

Was is slow enough that you might have captured a photo or video, even from a cell phone? If not, do you now keep a camera handy since you have had amazing sightings?

[edit on 18-5-2009 by imeddieone4202003]

Another thought --because this thread keeps digging a place in my mind:

Perhaps, much like ourselves, 'they' are sending out a series of drones.

The unmanned --un-aliened?-- drone reaches it's destination (by which means I have no idea) and then starts to collect data. Perhaps it makes a fly by and jets off again, or maybe it transmits its data and then simply crashes.

Assume the species is incredibly more advanced then us, and have the ability to find, and navigate to, lifeforms other than those native to their own world. What would we do in their situation?

I think we would send probes that take a look about, probes that crash on the surface, probes that land on the surface and finally occupied craft.

It may not be a completely sured up theory, but it would put alot of the silly questions to rest:

"Why do UFOs fly around with their lights on if they want to remain undiscovered?"

"Why would they make themselves known to random people (by sight or touch) and not political leaders/media?"

"Why don't they land on the whitehouse lawn""

"etc..."

-Maybe because they don't care what the wildlife thinks about their shiny toys and colored lights. After all, we fill the seas with subs covered in lights, probes and the intent to abduct. From tiny probes to massive, technological masterpieces...

...we must be some intimidating aliens down there.

I could u2u, but it's just as good here as anywhere...

Imeddieone,

I saw it for 5-6 seconds before the trees obscured it. There was no way I could have caught it on a camera, I was in complete shock as it was completely unexpected. Yes, I do keep a video camera ready to go at all times, and we've even taken it with us on trips out of town to visit the in-laws.

But you know, even if I did capture them on camera I'm not so sure I'd share it with the public. It would feel like betrayal. I suspect there is much evidence out there and most of those that have it will not release it for that very same reason.

As I said before, I truly believe their fly over was no accident. It was a delayed, and oddly, appropriately timed event in response to events in my past, specifically an event that happened a couple of weeks prior.

reply to post by Flux8


I honesty hate to pry, i assure you that every post of mine to another individual member is met with an open mind and all due respect. If a U2U is more appropriate then by all means we can pursue that avenue. But i have to ask since it was mentioned, what are the details of the incident prior to this sighting that may have incited this last instance.......

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


Even our aircraft go down more often than we would like.

There is a reason most militaries will refuse to look at a military aircraft with any fewer than two engines.

The number of man-hours required to keep an aircraft operational is astounding, especially when you get into the more corrosive environments (ocean/water - extremely hard on all organized materials) and abbrasive environments (deserts - sandy/dusty climates). Not to mention the extremes of temperatures - aircraft being a hundred plus degrees fahrenheit on the ground in Texas, then being 50 below zero when the plane gets up to altitude.

Of course - space comes with its own extremes. You have cosmic dust, solar flares, radiation (which translates to temperature extremes), tidal forces (which can play hell on your hull structure), and all sorts of things.

We also do not know what numbers of "ET craft" visit us - so it's impossible for us to figure in what is or is not a reasonable failure rate.

Not to mention - these ships may not be developed for combat or environmental extremes at all. We may be looking at the Chevy Pickup of the galaxy - readily configured by all different cultures to be everything from a Technical combat vehicle to transport, research, and any other goal imaginable. Though it may not be your first choice for any of those operations.

That, or we may be dealing with a completely different culture that does not see the need to develop robust means of preserving life (the loss of their own members is not a primary concern of theirs). Thus, it would stand to reason that we may not be seeing anything intended to be very reliable or combat worthy (to fend off our weapons).

One could say we are no match for them, militarily - but I would say that it is apples and oranges. Comparing our military weapons to their vehicles we've encountered (reportedly) is like comparing the effectiveness of a hand grenade against an Indy Car. At the right place, and right time - a hand grenade will blow an indy car to splinters.... but the indy car covers a lot of space in a very small amount of time (and is nothing you would choose to use when confronting a platoon, anyway).

We just don't know enough to do much more than speculate as to why or why not they would crash. We do know, however, that our current splendors of technology succumb to many of the same forces of nature that our generations-old technology did. I'm not inclined to believe we will separate ourselves from the concept of maintenance and mechanical failure.

I was recently rereading a famous arch-debunkers, Dr. Donald H. Menzel, book and found this passage particularly relevant,

"If thousands of aircraft from other planets have indeed been patrolling the earth for many years (according to some authors, for centuries), they have achieved an incredibly perfect safety record. Disabled or wrecked flying saucers have occasionally been reported, but the debris and bodies to be expected from such incidents have never been located."

(Source: World of Flying Saucers, The; Donald H. Menzel & Lyle G. Boyd; DoubleDay; Garden City, NY; 1963; Library of Congress Catalog No. - 63-12989; pp. 219)

It amuses me to no end that a noted astronomer and astrophysicist is willing to speculate about alien-spacecraft crash-rate statistics without first knowing the details of such a craft / civilization.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Xtraeme]