My "UFO" photo - How much can we tell from it?

reply to post by CHRLZ


But wild speculation is much more fun than k.i.s.s. That web link refers to the work of:

"Paul R. Hill (1909–1990) was an American pioneering aeronautical research engineer who spent a lifetime on the cutting edge of research and development for NACA and NASA."

He took his wild speculation very seriously, having seen UFOs and attempting to explain their behavior and characteristics, which seemed outside of the laws of physics. He even created his own "Unconventional Flying Objects" to try to mimic UFO propulsion. Blurry "UFO" pics just remind me of his theories, as well as of bugs, and of pilot sightings of flying discs surrounded by a cloudiness (from "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good). (Give me a rorschach test and I will annoy the H--- out of you!)

I do realize a photo can't really say anything at all...

So all we can do here, really, is wildly speculate, unless we've seen UFOs defying the laws of manmade technology with our own eyes, and even then we may just suspect we've been slipped a special brownie. What a frustrating topic for anyone who hasn't seen one....

reply to post by stirling


What...exactly...are space critters? Sorry, everyone, curiosity is killing this cat..............It's not completely off-topic...is it?

Originally posted by burdenofdreams
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

But wild speculation is much more fun than k.i.s.s. That web link refers to the work of:

"Paul R. Hill (1909–1990) was an American pioneering aeronautical research engineer who spent a lifetime on the cutting edge of research and development for NACA and NASA."

He took his wild speculation very seriously, having seen UFOs and attempting to explain their behavior and characteristics, which seemed outside of the laws of physics. He even created his own "Unconventional Flying Objects" to try to mimic UFO propulsion. Blurry "UFO" pics just remind me of his theories, as well as of bugs, and of pilot sightings of flying discs surrounded by a cloudiness (from "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good). (Give me a rorschach test and I will annoy the H--- out of you!)

I do realize a photo can't really say anything at all...

So all we can do here, really, is wildly speculate, unless we've seen UFOs defying the laws of manmade technology with our own eyes, and even then we may just suspect we've been slipped a special brownie. What a frustrating topic for anyone who hasn't seen one....

reply to post by stirling

 

What...exactly...are space critters? Sorry, everyone, curiosity is killing this cat..............It's not completely off-topic...is it?

What makes you think I haven't seen one (or three..)? Au contraire. But I like to apply very high levels of rigour to images and video, and happen to have a lot of experience with imaging - and these just aren't passing my threshold of interest (yes, it's quite high!!). I am happy to spend a bit of time helping, but.. a dead end is just that. And a blurry blob is most likely - a blurry blob!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you - indeed I'm delighted that you took the time to help analyse the image - more power to you! And keep it up - maybe the next one will be better again.

Originally posted by burdenofdreams
But wild speculation is much more fun than k.i.s.s. That web link refers to the work of:
"Paul R. Hill (1909–1990) was an American pioneering aeronautical research engineer who spent a lifetime on the cutting edge of research and development for NACA and NASA."

By the way, I took the time to dig a little deeper... Your quote comes from a lengthy, detailed wiki.... the vast majority of which is uncited, and produced by mainly one author. None of the 'interesting' stuff is properly cited, nor peer reviewed or published other than by Hill himself - eg his supersonic-without-sonic-boom stuff, which he says is 'easily engineered' - yet he never managed it, nor has anyone since. Even the most leading edge research has only got to the stage of reducing it - the sonic boom is a HUGE problem in aeronautics, and would be embraced by the military and commercial interests in a second.. if it could be done. (The fact that craft were able to do it, btw, would be very quickly discovered by Joe Public / ATS - think about it..)

Anyways, you'll note the cautions about lack of citations at the bottom of the page - no-one seems to have challenged it to date, but is that because it is all unchallengable... or just a lack of interest? The Wiki page includes such gems as:

Applying the antigravity field to the occupants of the craft would protect them against the effects of high acceleration, since they could be accelerated at the same rate as the craft itself.

Can you spot the two 'tiny' problems with that claim-presented-as-fact?

Even if you believe all that is stated on the page, Hill also appears to have no formal training in the sort of physics required to be making presumptions about energy fields and plasma... I'm not necessarily disputing everything on that page, but I'd just suggest a little caution in accepting everything you read, esp. on Wiki...

Anyway, I'm not against speculation, but if it isn't backed up by anything tangible I tend to get a little bored..

reply to post by CHRLZ


When you fault the page for linking to a wiki, are you talking about the link to Paul Hill's bio? That does indeed link to wikipedia, but are you suggesting Paul Hill was not really an aeronautical engineer working for NASA? Here's a link to Hill's book described on the hypernet site link:

UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS

Actually, I notice the excerpts at the hypernet link are from a review of the book by physicist Harold Puthoff, who seems to think Hill's theory is sound... But then Puthoff was also into remote viewing, which discredits him in the eyes of some...

P.S.- The thing about UFO occupants needing to be protected by an antigravity field is way beyond me, but Hill seems to be assuming there are biological occupants in UFOs, which we don't really know at all.

OK, now I know I'm definitely going off topic, so I'll stop. =)

It was a dark and stormy night when burdenofdreams wrote..

When you fault the page for linking to a wiki, are you talking about the link to Paul Hill's bio?

I'm lost... The quote that he "was an American pioneering aeronautical research engineer who spent a lifetime on the cutting edge of research and development for NACA.." etc comes direct from Wiki. If it originates elsewhere then that is even more damning for the Wiki author, who did not cite it.

are you suggesting Paul Hill was not really an aeronautical engineer working for NASA?

Frankly, I don't know what to believe, but please don't confuse an aeronautical engineer with a nuclear physicist or electromagnetic fields expert. Those doctrines have little in common.

Actually, I notice the excerpts at the hypernet link are from a review of the book by physicist Harold Puthoff, who seems to think Hill's theory is sound... But then Puthoff was also into remote viewing, which discredits him in the eyes of some...

Again, if we are to believe Wiki, what discredits him even more in my eyes is that he was sucked in by Uri Geller and believed he had real powers. Geez, even as a kid I could see that Geller was a complete faker, and his subsequent exposure has come as no surprise to those with a bit of genuinely informed skepticism.

Some people just desperately want to believe. And the Gellers of our planet are waiting for them with open arms and wallets.

P.S.- The thing about UFO occupants needing to be protected by an antigravity field is way beyond me, but Hill seems to be assuming there are biological occupants in UFOs, which we don't really know at all.

Agreed. It always seems strange that ufo-eth believers think that the aliens would be humanoid, about our size, and that they would actually come here rather than send the proverbial 'probe'.

Also, there are the minor problems that no-one has ever created an 'anti-gravity' field, nor has anyone explained exactly how it would prevent g-force problems from acceleration. Nor can you, judging by your comment - can anyone?

OK, now I know I'm definitely going off topic, so I'll stop. =)

Just when it was gettin' interesting?