UFOLOGY Ireland

solas

just found a link to it, thanks kernel.

Kernel

solas wrote:

just found a link to it, thanks kernel.

No problem solas, good postings in this thread anyway.

Kernel

Briony Noh wrote:

Having said all that, I have a personal suspicion that there is one single scientific fact that, once it is known to us, will explain how UFOs - and ghosts and fairies and all the rest - can and indeed frequently do happen.

If anyone knows what that scientific fact is, why not share it with the rest of us? (I'm speaking directly to the Visitor among us...)

The ultraterrestrial hypothesis can explain a multitude of encounters of high-strangeness. Read these links. I can say no more, my life may be in danger, I already suspect my postings and emails are being monitored, and several disinformation and intelligence agents may have already infiltrated this board.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htm
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/paradigms.html

solas

I already suspect my postings and emails are being monitored,

well I think with the level of insecurity on the web, most people feel the same way

Ziycon

HomunQlus wrote:

As far as I understand physics:
Radiation levels are caused by a nuclear blast. Radiation can not stop a nuclear blast - the blast is the cause, not vice versa.

Your basing that on science as we humans know and think it works! We could be wrong!

Ziycon

Kernel wrote:

I already suspect my postings and emails are being monitored.

No doubt they would have the board logged in there database, they would have to ass its a location as to where some one may stuble upon something they dont want you to know!

Its like the law enforcement agencies of the world monitor chat rooms for intell. - same applies to this topic!

Zillah

Ziycon wrote:

Your basing that on science as we humans know and think it works! We could be wrong!

No, you see, if the aliens had appeared and said "We stopped the explosion by lowering the radition levels" then I'd say, "Well, that doesn't make sense to me, but you're the interstellar super genius!"

However, the very human author wrote that, and so I say the author is talking crap.

solas

No doubt they would have the board logged in there database, they would have to ass its a location as to where some one may stuble upon something they dont want you to know!

I hope this thread doesn't deteriorate into a frenzy of paranoid ramblings. I can assure you that there are no agencies dedicated to checking out Kernels daily curriculum for information that "he may know". (with the exception of customer related spyware) Thats not to say those feelings of paranoia are unfounded, its true you may be sensing an uneasyness surrounding your security online, but the source may not be as ominous as you think. Maybe its your subconscious recognising and sensing someone utilising your information via simple spyware features.

There have been times that I wished there were agencies out there, but rest assured there isn't!

Kernel

solas wrote:

There have been times that I wished there were agencies out there, but rest assured there isn't!

At the risk of dragging this thread into the realm of conspiracy, I have to say that I would bet my house that there are divisions within the CIA and NSA which monitor internet traffic and forums, as well as spreading disinformation.

EDIT: Also, never underestimate the power of a few well planted blogs...

eg. Said in Baghdad says "life is great and we have so much more freedom now that America has liberated us".. etc.

EDIT Part 2:

Check out:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html
http://www.copi.com/articles/ciapsyops.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Attack_on_Constitution/Powerful_Internet_Propaganda_P/powerful_internet_propaganda_p.html
http://www.freedomdomain.com/cia/nsa01.html

I wonder how many sniffers are trawling boards eh?

solas

I have to say that I would bet my house that there are divisions within the CIA and NSA which monitor internet traffic and forums,

I can assure you they have no interest in you unless you are supected of being a national threat or member of a terrorist organisation.

they really arent half as intelligent as you credit them kernel.
now, try and stay on topic.

solas

briony noh wrote:

I'll just say that I have a very plausible theory of my own and I defy anyone to let me publish it. Go on. Dare you...

....taps fingers.

HomunQlus

Kernel wrote:

Ahhh the infamous world trade centre UFO footage. Unfortunately people, it's a well known fake. It was actually shot for the Sci-Fi channel.

http://www.rense.com/general41/scihoax.htm

Ah yes, I see it's fake... The link you posted was VERY informative :rolleyes:

You know that they are supposed to say it's been shot as a commercial for the sci-fi channel so no one would ask anymore questions about this clip?

Here are some thing you should consider and research thoroughly, before saying 'ok guys, it's fake'.

The entire thing is shot in one camera position, and is very much looking a live shot.

The clip does not look like as it is scripted in any way. Why? No one, and no one, would script something like "Is it a blimp?" as sentence for a beginning of a shot out of a helicopter in the beginning.

The quality of the clip shows, that it's a normal amateur video camera, not a professional one.

But there are far more things to prove it's genuine, like:

The pixelation of the UFO is indeed the same as everything else in the clip, best point of relevance would be the WTC.

This is already a very strong point to conclude that this object is not dropped into the clip.

If a CGI (Computer Generated Imaging) object is dropped into a clip or movie, it ALWAYS has a sharper pixelation as everything else - this is because of the rendering technologies we have, a render is automatically high resolution and thus have a sharper pixelation. This is another very strong point.

But, and here's the real important one:

The UFO's movements are absolutely consistent with the camera movements. It seems, as if he's holding the camera in his hand, therefore it logically shakes.

A CGI cannot be dropped into a clip in which the camera is shaken like that. This is to the date not possible with all rendering software we have. You can look this up anywhere in the internet, this is a well known fact. Therefore, if this is a render, then whoever did this, has revolutionized digital imaging as itself and should win an Oscar for special effects.

Conclusion:

Due to the above facts, which are real facts guys, we can safely say that this footage is not scripted or produced in any way. What we see is a device that can fly, which is at the former WTC, showing maneuvers that can not be done by any device or flying machine we have to the day. So, it is a UFO of unknown origin, the footage is real.

Advice:

Please do some research on video and digital imaging, and do it thoroughly, before you say, "it's fake".

=================

Ziycon wrote:

Your basing that on science as we humans know and think it works! We could be wrong!

I believe that our science has conclusively proven, that a nuclear chain reaction causes radiation. This is just the way our world works, aliens cannot change that. A nuclear blast cannot be prevented by bringing down radiation levels, as there are none prior to a nuclear chain reaction (-> blast).

HomunQlus

Kernel wrote:

At the risk of dragging this thread into the realm of conspiracy, I have to say that I would bet my house that there are divisions within the CIA and NSA which monitor internet traffic and forums, as well as spreading disinformation.

Exactly, and the Illuminati are closely working together with high-ranking officers of the CIA, FBI, NSA and of course the secret interstellar fleet of some alien race, and they're transferring all the information they acquired from your computer to their homeworld for further studying....

stevenmu

HomunQlus wrote:

But, and here's the real important one:

The UFO's movements are absolutely consistent with the camera movements. It seems, as if he's holding the camera in his hand, therefore it logically shakes.

A CGI cannot be dropped into a clip in which the camera is shaken like that. This is to the date not possible with all rendering software we have. You can look this up anywhere in the internet, this is a well known fact. Therefore, if this is a render, then whoever did this, has revolutionized digital imaging as itself and should win an Oscar for special effects.

I haven't had a chance to look at this clip yet, and when I've more time I'll get my teeth into the rest of this thread, but I'll just take on this point for now. The technology to do this does exist and has been used. I think it may have been used in the discoverys channels series where they used CGI versions of historical characters (Churchill, Hitler etc). I think it was also used in the Lord of the Rings films.

Basically the software just needs to know the position of the object to be rendered (in this case the UFO) relative to the camera's position (not it's orientation). By tracking the movement of the camera, the software can easily workout where to render the object in the image and at what angles. The camera movement can be tracked by gyros, through special mounts, or by analysing the movement of the picture (altough this is highly innacurate). If the desired movements are known in advance a robotic arm can move the camera as required, this is the most accurate but obviously not always suitable.

I can't say if it was used or not in this case (especially without having seen the clip ) but it is an available technology.

HomunQlus

stevenmu wrote:

I haven't had a chance to look at this clip yet, and when I've more time I'll get my teeth into the rest of this thread, but I'll just take on this point for now. The technology to do this does exist and has been used. I think it may have been used in the discoverys channels series where they used CGI versions of historical characters (Churchill, Hitler etc). I think it was also used in the Lord of the Rings films.

Basically the software just needs to know the position of the object to be rendered (in this case the UFO) relative to the camera's position (not it's orientation). By tracking the movement of the camera, the software can easily workout where to render the object in the image and at what angles. The camera movement can be tracked by gyros, through special mounts, or by analysing the movement of the picture (altough this is highly innacurate). If the desired movements are known in advance a robotic arm can move the camera as required, this is the most accurate but obviously not always suitable.

I can't say if it was used or not in this case (especially without having seen the clip ) but it is an available technology.

That's right, but in those cases, the camera movements of the real one in the movies and the one from CGI are synchronous and have been calculated before.

Technology to achieve the same pixelation of a CGI object and its surroundings, with the same position of the camera shake, is simply impossible.

Kernel

HomunQlus wrote:

Ah yes, I see it's fake... The link you posted was VERY informative :rolleyes:

You know that they are supposed to say it's been shot as a commercial for the sci-fi channel so no one would ask anymore questions about this clip?

Advice:

Please do some research on video and digital imaging, and do it thoroughly, before you say, "it's fake".

Dude, give it up, it's a well known fake in ufology circles. It was made by the SCI FI channel as an advert. The woman in the helicopter is an actress. It was posted on the SCI FI channel website in it's entirety, showing the SCI FI channel logo at the end. It's been debunked... it's not real.

http://www.alcione.org/VIDEONY1/videony2.htm

If a solid object of that size passed so close to a helicopter at that velocity, have you any idea how the air displacement would flip that helicopter?

You would take a tv advert as real footage, but wouldn't believe that there are departments within intelligence agencies which actively monitor and post disinformation on the internet? That's a bit strange.

HomunQlus

Kernel wrote:

Dude, give it up, it's a well known fake in ufology circles. It was made by the SCI FI channel as an advert. The woman in the helicopter is an actress. It was posted on the SCI FI channel website in it's entirety, showing the SCI FI channel logo at the end. It's been debunked... it's not real.

http://www.alcione.org/VIDEONY1/videony2.htm

If a solid object of that size passed so close to a helicopter at that velocity, have you any idea how the air displacement would flip that helicopter?

You would take a tv advert as real footage, but wouldn't believe that there are departments within intelligence agencies which actively monitor and post disinformation on the internet? That's a bit strange.

Dude, I don't give it up. It's a real footage, please look up the facts on the Internet regarding Digital Imaging, and all the websites that discuss this footage.

Obviously, you don't wanna do that, so I don't wanna discuss this any further with you.

And with this, the topic is closed for me.

Kernel

HomunQlus wrote:

Dude, I don't give it up. It's a real footage, please look up the facts on the Internet regarding Digital Imaging, and all the websites that discuss this footage.

Obviously, you don't wanna do that, so I don't wanna discuss this any further with you.

And with this, the topic is closed for me.

Listen man, if someone tells me Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is real, I don't feel I need to research digital imagery and computer generated imaging and special effects to prove that they aren't real.

You've been duped, and I'm amazed that there are still websites out there debating this. It was debunked in 2003 ffs! And believe me, I followed it with great interest when it first came out.

2 or 3 years ago.

solas

kernel wrote:

that there are departments within intelligence agencies which actively monitor and post disinformation on the internet?

how many identities do you post under exactly?

I'm in b!tch slapping humour, and tempted to move this thread to the conspiracy theories forum.

Kernel

solas wrote:

how many identities do you post under exactly?

I'm in b!tch slapping humour, and tempted to move this thread to the conspiracy theories forum.

Look solas babes, I'm taking big risks here, I almost got it at the M50 tollbridge on my way back from work. I'll take it as a warning, if they wanted me dead I would be by now, but I may have to go underground for a while.

EDIT: this is my only identity on boards, btw, why do you think I have others? I have other alias' in the real world though.

solas

this is my only identity on boards, btw, why do you think I have others?

isn' that what conspiracy theorists do?
seriously kernel, at the rate its going, the thread would be more suitable in the ct forum.

Zillah

Well Solas, as things are going now this'll have to be edited if its going to remain the "Ufology Ireland" sticky.

Solas wrote:

I'm in b!tch slapping humour

Thunderdome?

solas

ya, I already located it.
in all fairness Zillah I consider myself to be a reasonable mod, I don't feel like I should have to continually warn people of the guidelines especially those who are already aware of them. If you want me to respect you, than at least try to return the gesture by respecting the forum.

For clarification, I have no qualms in discussing referent Govtl involvment in order to give substance to or back up theory, but I won't permit the forum to be distorted with the merchandise of unrelated paranoia, Like this gem

kernel wrote:

I already suspect my postings and emails are being monitored, and several disinformation and intelligence agents may have already infiltrated this board.

At least while the oppertunity to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner has been presented.

Zillah

solas wrote:

ya, I already located it.
in all fairness Zillah I consider myself to be a reasonable mod, I don't feel like I should have to continually warn people of the guidelines especially those who are already aware of them. If you want me to respect you, than at least try to return the gesture by respecting the forum.

I fear you have misunderstood me... I was wondering if your "b!tch slapping humour" was caused by the LeRack thread in thunderdome. You seemed most displeased at it. I was empathising.

solas

my input in this thread preceeded my post in the thunderdome. Its unrelated and shouldn't really be discussed here.

solas

in an effort to get this thread back on topic, does the OP have want to share any of the proposed material.

ziycon wrote:

I understand what your saying but the contactign airports and military press office is all done by ourselves aswell

I'm interested in discussing your findings.

stevenmu

Damn, I've finally go some time to put a good constructive post together and I can't remember what I wanted to write about. So I'll just pick through bits

and pieces of other peoples posts, if anyone reading gets lost of confused, don't worry, it's probably all crap anyway

HomunQlus wrote:

What are UFOs?

HomunQlus wrote:

Theory 1: Advanced civilization visits us

One of the best sub-theories within this that I've heard is that there was a huge upsurge in reported UFO activity about ten years after the first nuclear

bomb tests, I don't know the figures but basically from 'almost none' to 'lots'. The theory is that these blasts sent out a 'signal' which would be

detectable by another civilisation and unmistakeable as a sign of advanced (technologically at least) society. This would have made us interesting and worth

visiting, whereas before there would have been little reason to come here.

HomunQlus wrote:

Theory 2: Humans from a far future visit us

Personally I believe that the past exists any more, and the future doesn't exists yet, making time travel impossible. I don't see time as a dimension that is

travelled through, at least not in the sense that we can travel through the normal 3 dimensions. That said, if time travel is invented someday, I don't think

people would travel back in time, it would be far safer and more practical to simply monitor the past (or our present) from the present (which would be our

future).

HomunQlus wrote:

Theory 3: Flying Saucers originate from Hitler times

God bless the discovery channel . They showed a documentary (I think using recently declassified material) a while ago about how the scientists responsible

for these carried on their work in the US after the war. They included footage and a lot of details about how they worked. They basically relied on one or

more upward facing jet engines, combined with an aerodynamic 'disc' effect to generate their lift. The 'disc' effect was something to do with air being

pulled down by the jet engines, over the shape of the spinning craft creating lift. Their performance was very poor and they were very inefficient. There

have been huge strides in jet technology and aerodynamics since which perhaps could have increased their performance, but really the basic design was far

inferior to other designs using similar engine technologies (planes and helicopters) and they were abandoned. A viable 'flying disc' capable of some of the

feats witnesses claim UFOs have performed would really require some form of propulsion of which we are currently unaware, such as anti-gravity. There are of

course claims by some that the USAF has top-secret anti-gravity devices, but I've looked at a few serious anti-gravity researchers web sites and they don't

seem to think so.

There are of course also natural phenomona which are responsible 'lights in the sky' and other 'sightings'. One theory suggests that tectonic plate movement

can cause ball lightening, which can appear as a light or ball of fire moving rapidly across the sky. IIRC this has been tested in a lab and the results

while inconclusive (kinda hard to move billions of tons of rock around a lab) suggested it was possible. This theory ties in nicely with the increased

sightings usually reported around the time of large earthquakes.

It's probably impossible to pin one cause on UFO sightings, with all the hype these days around them, anything unexplained immediatly becomes a UFO, it's

quite possible that some sightings are aliens, some are secret military craft, some are humans from the future, some are natural phenomona and others the

result of too much alcohol.



As for Chernobyl

The explosion was very large, but, luckily, it was a thermal blast. The fourth power generating unit was basically destroyed by

overheated steam. There was no nuclear explosion. Roughly 180 tons of enriched uranium were in the reactor. If a large blast had happened, half of Europe

would not currently be depicted on any maps.

This is pretty much how a nuclear reactor will explode if everything goes wrong, without any alien

interference. To create what the quote refers to as a 'nuclear explosion' requires a very carefully and precisely constructed payload of fissile material

(much less than millimetres of tolerance), detonated by being simoultaneously compressed from all directions by very precisely shaped and timed explosive

charges. If any part of it is in any way not absolutely perfect, the bomb will 'fizzle', which means only a tiny portion of the fissile material will

explode, destroying the rest of it before it gets a chance to. The theory behind building a nuclear bomb is extremely simple, and apparantly the parts for

them aren't to hard to come by either, it's the precision of the construction required which means that the resources of a nation state are required to build

one, and the machinery capable of working at the reuquired precision levels is very carefully controlled.




Watching the WTC video again, it is certainly very impressive but I found what I believe to be a very obvious tell-tale that it's fake (it seems obvious to

me onw at least, I'm sure others'll disagree). Towards the end of the clip when the disc appears to suddenly shoot towards the helicopter before swerving off

to the top right of the picture, the cameraman manages to follow the disc almost perfectly. Now I've got pretty good reflexes, but I wouldn't even have had

time to crap myself, let alone follow the disc up out of picture, I don't think there's any reasonable way anyone could have. The only possibility I see of

it being real is if the camera just happened to accidentally point it in the right way.

Also, I'm no CGI expert, but I think the much vaunted matching pixelation could have been achieved by having both the footage and the CGI add-in at a much

higher resolution than needed, and then downsampling the result to give the final product.








P.S. I was too lazy to dig up references for everything mentioned, but someone wants something specific I'll gladly find some (and no Zillah, I won't just find

references for 'everything' )

Zillah

You pasted from notepad didn't you? :P

One of the best sub-theories within this that I've heard is that there was a huge upsurge in reported UFO activity about ten years after the first nuclear bomb tests, I don't know the figures but basically from 'almost none' to 'lots'. The theory is that these blasts sent out a 'signal' which would be detectable by another civilisation and unmistakeable as a sign of advanced (technologically at least) society. This would have made us interesting and worth visiting, whereas before there would have been little reason to come here.

The fundamental problem with that idea is that any such signal would move at the speed of light, meaning that it would take hundreds, if not thousands of years before it reached other solar systems.

I don't see time as a dimension that is travelled through

Of course you don't, you've got a puny three dimensional brain. I'll agree that its unlikely that you can "travel" through time in any conventional sense, but time being a dimension, albeit one we perceive oddly, is accepted scientiffic theory. I say theory because technically its one of those things you can't "prove" per se.

One theory suggests that tectonic plate movement

can cause ball lightening

"Ball lightning" isn't quite accurate a term. They're known as "electroforms" or "earthforms". They've done some pretty conclusive tests in labs that shows that free standing electroforms can be created by putting certain types of rock under great stress. Hell if you get two pieces of (I think quartz) and rub them together in the dark, you'll see loads of tiny tiny blue flashes between the edges.

The theory behind building a nuclear bomb is extremely simple, and apparantly the parts for

them aren't to hard to come by either, it's the precision of the construction required which means that the resources of a nation state are required to build

one, and the machinery capable of working at the reuquired precision levels is very carefully controlled

Not so much. The precision required to make a nuclear weapon is why you need a team of incredibly knowledgably scientists, its the process of creating HEU (highly enriched uranium) which costs countries their gross national product to make.

Good points on the NAZI discs and the WTC.

-Al-

My hats off to the UFO pilot, another second and he woulda hit the choppers rotors.

Also it does look fake, especially as it approaches the heli.

RE: http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/wizardfl/MainVideoPage.html

This is taken from a report on there site about this video: http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/wizardfl/normal.mpg

THIS HISTORICAL EVENT WHICH DISCLOSES THE REALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

While the video is impressive, Id hardly say its proved anything.

Interesting thread though.

jellycopter

I guess this is as good a place as any to post some of my own UFO experiences!

I swear that I'm not pulling anyones leg here and honestly did experience the following things. So here goes...!

The first time I saw a UFO was when I was about 5 or 6 years old. It was a bright Summers day and I was out in my back garden, with my mother and we were just chilling out sitting on the grass. There was not a cloud in the sky and it was early afternoon. For no particular reason, I looked upwards. At the bottom of our garden I saw a pretty large (about the size of a car) "flying saucer." It went by at about 15 mph in complete silence. It wasn't very high, just above the treetops and it was only in view for about 3 seconds, but long enough for me to be able to see detail on the craft. I can still remember the shape (literally a flying saucer), blackened out windows and the craft was a greyish blue colour (though this may have been as a result of the clear blue sky reflecting off the craft). I was frantic and yelled to my mother, but she didn't lift her head up from her magazine soon enough to see anything. I was buzzing for the rest of the day, so excited at what I had seen. Later that day a teenage girl from up the street called around to my house. She had also seen the flying saucer that day and we spoke briefly about it.


My second experience was when I was ten years old. I was on holiday with my folks in the Canaries. We were in town one evening, an open square area where there were plenty of restaurants and pubs etc. We suddenly became aware that most people were looking up at the sky and sure enough, there was a silver orb hovering high above us all. I'm pretty sure it remained stationary the whole time it was in view. Eventually it began to change colour and I'm sure hundreds of people saw this thing. I'd heard of weather balloons and so didn't really get too excited at the time, but it was quite cool to see so many people chatting excitidly and looking up, taking pics etc. Having since seen footage of actual weather balloons on TV, I'm pretty sure that what we all saw that day was no weather baloon. Also, that night there was an explosion in the islands power plant and most of the place was without electricity. I'm not saying they're connected, but it happened and the combination of the two incidents kinda freaked me out at the time.

Another incident happened when I was in my early 20's. It was about 11pm and myself and two friends were sat in a stationary car, chatting. No drink or drugs were involved...! We were just chilling out and I'm pretty sure we had just come back from a movie. Where I live is not a very big town, so when it's dark you can see the stars clearly if the sky is clear (no glare from "big city lights" y'see). I stuck my head out the window (not for the first time that night) to gaze up and the stars and saw what I initially thought was a shooting star. I had never seen one before and reacted excitidly, saying something along the line of "Hey, check that s*it out!!" Suddenly the "star" which was moving very fast from right to left, moved in an "up/down" motion a couple of times and came to a complete stop. I kept looking at it for about 10 - 15 mins but there was no more activity.

Well, that's it then. I have had some other experiences, but these would arguably be the most "spectacular". Knowing the nature of bulletin boards, I'm sure plenty will say I'm a liar, others that I imagined these things. Hey, that's your call. Still, I know what I saw and am comfortable with the fact I'm being completely honest.