http://truthufo.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Here we do not pretend to say YES or NO if they exist. Nevertheless, some phenomena are observed by both civilian and military, people of good faith, not hallucinated, for some people who have an education level well above the average ...

Whatever these phenomena, it is not always possible to decently deny or find explanations too often with no real facts. Obviously a hundred comments on only a small percentage may be considered disturbing.

Like many other observers, the co-administrator of this site and I have not been able to define what we witnessed. Of course we are not scientists and we can certainly not always be able to understand what we observed. But common sense, observation and comparison with the facts of everyday life can already help eliminate many possibilities.

So here we will only identify what seems "plausible", "disturbing", but also funny in UFO. There is also a section on land that many facts could be described as "curious", "amazing" and a section where you can submit your testimony of observation.

Why this site?

We noted that since 2007 the UFO phenomenon continues to grow.

Followed by three observations of luminous spheres in August 2008 and most recently in early 2009. We decided to create this site to gather the most striking facts and plausible that we will find on the web.

We wish you good ride on our site that primarily aim to be entertaining ...

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Following the return of some Internet users, we want to tell you: That we have no connection with the UFO Forum France. Thank you.

UFO, UFO, PAN?

The acronym UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) is the translation of the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object). A review of evidence and the results of investigations show that this term is most often unsuitable: in most cases the observations describe a phenomenon known or unknown, but generally light, without proof of the presence of an object materialized. The use of the general term PAN (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) is more appropriate.

ufo

We are not alone, polluted unidentified objects that we do not see.
These objects are going fast enough that our eyes do not have time to see them.
If a vehicle moves faster than the speed of persistence of the human eye so we can not see this thing! ! !
This proves that UFOs even if they seem to be hovering can make a leap in ultra-fast blink of an eye and jump from one position to another so quickly that our eyes can see (but sometimes the cameras and the cameras capture)

Tuesday, 26 August 2008

DI55 documents should be destroyed

http://mybalagi.blogspot.com/

The documents of DI55 would almost have been destroyed, as the "Observer" reported. The 24 archives of the UFO investigators were asbestverseucht and provides for the shredder. But then, the Ministry of Defence decided to advance the paper mountain to digitize - for at least three million pounds, which is now around four million euros. Last year, the action has been completed.

One proof of visitors from outer space should be in the archives but hard to find. Already in May 2006, the British Ministry of Defence a long report on his UFO research published (more. ..). The little surprising result: There are UFOs - but only as a result of natural phenomena or human Treibens. Also from French UFO files is as yet no striking proof of extraterrestrial visitors become known.

Conspiracy theorists should hardly discouraged. If they have no trace of Aliens in the DI55 documents, they are again the British government accused of disguising and opening the archive as a red herring denounce. Clearly demonstrate the DI55 documents probably only one thing: that the British Ministry of Defence was uncertain whether perhaps real UFO aliens behind the messages stuck - and that this issue was important enough to secure a special UFO department to establish.

British government opens UFO archives

The findings are days for UFO disciples: The British government published shortly their documents on unidentified flying objects. For decades, the Geheimdossiers in archives, should even be destroyed - though they all colour and Bizarres.

The department DI55 was so secret that the British government has denied their very existence. Only 2006, the Ministry of Defence admitted that the Ufojäger unit actually has. Scientists had relied on the Freedom of Information Act, citizens have access to all documents authorities open, the forced confession.
German » English Translate Suggest a better translation
Thank you for contributing your translation suggestion to Google Translate.We'll use your suggestion to improve translation quality in future updates to our system. British government opens UFO archives
The findings are days for UFO disciples: The British government published shortly their documents on unidentified flying objects. For decades, the Geheimdossiers in archives, should even be destroyed - though they all colour and Bizarres.

DISPLAY
The department DI55 was so secret that the British government has denied their very existence. Only 2006, the Ministry of Defence admitted that the Ufojäger unit actually has. Scientists had relied on the Freedom of Information Act, citizens have access to all documents authorities open, the forced confession.

British government opens UFO archives

Monday, 25 August 2008

FOs contributions of members of the AIAA:

UFOs contributions of members of the AIAA:

By PETER A. STURROCK, Stanford University

Most UFO reports concerning the experiences of lovers, but scientists and engineers disclose accounts similar when one takes the trouble to ask them a detailed report of their experience.

For many years the "UFO phenomenon" has greatly concerned the public but received comparatively little response from scientists. The "UFO phenomenon" is equivalent to this question: reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs or indicate they establish a set of facts that can not be interpreted in terms of natural phenomena known and technological devices? And if yes, these facts can be modelled and interpreted? popular discussions about the UFO phenomenon pay special attention to the possibility that some of the comments correpondent an effective model supporting the hypothesis that vehicles extraterrestrials visit earth.

Most scientists have hoped that the problem would certainly be clarified and probably settled by the "Condon Report" (1) based on the "Draft Colorado." Examinations of the report reflected differences of opinions. (2.3) The report published Conference on UFOs organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1969 indicated a wide range of opinion about the Condon report at the time. (4) It is without doubt the same today.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics the (AIAA), alone among the established scientific organizations took the initiative to try to bring the UFO phenomenon known to scientists seriously. In 1967 its technical committee of the area and Atmospheric Science has created a subcommittee to acquire a new objective perspective on the UFO problem. " In 1970 this subcommittee has edited a publication on its position. (5) The discussions also led to the publication of two reports extensive comments notable UFO. (6.7)

Scientists no undoubtedly discouraged to take the problem seriously by the bizarre nature of some reports and the emphasis on "extraterrestrial hypothesis" (ETH). The fact that most reports are anecdotal nature and come from non-scientic is also a cause for scepticism.

In his book "The UFO Experience" (8), JA Hynek confronts and denies the widespread idea that "scientists do not comment UFO" it cites a number of reports of comments from scientists .

Hynek he targeted a particular group of scientists, or is there actually much more suitable reports by scientists that what you believe? It turned out that this issue could be addressed by a simple overview of a limited group of scientifically qualified person, and it was also possible to obtain a sample of opinion about the UFO phenomenon by scientists.

The executive committee of the section of San Francisco Chapter of the AIAA has authorized a study of its members. This article describes the study and its results contains

The questionnaire shown below was sent to all 1,175 members of the section of San Francisco on April 9, 1973, and 423 questionnaires (36%) were returned completed. All percentages that follow here refer to the total returned completed questionnaires.

The first question asked is: "what is your subjective assessment of the likelihood that the UFO phenomenon represent a scientifically significant?" Sue the 423 returns, 93 (22 percent) gave numerical scores (see T-1) of this likelihood and have indicated a widespread dissemination of opinion, the median assessment about P = 0.4, twenty-two P returns with close to 0,

Most respondents (290, or 69 percent) gave verbal answers to Question 1. T2 combines, and comparison purposes, includes numerical answers. Those who give verbal responses shows more dispersion in their views. Of those who make verbal responses, 25 percent are defined ( "impossible" or "some"); those responses are digital, only 16% are defined (P = 0 or P = 1).

Of the 40 responses remaining 33 did not reply to Question 1, two responses were not related, or said that the issue had no importance, or that the issue is exciting, or that the matter should be studied , And two (in a way justified) it is said that the issue is unclear.

You see here the reports submitted in response to question 2 of the questionnaire, arbitrarily classified by time of day or the person has had the experience.

Many people giving a negative response to the comments offered in question 2, however. For example, eight were of the opinion that more research is needed, as they have indicated the opposite to answer 1. Two have offered the opinion that UFOs are extraterrestrials, and four have indicated they are not. Five were of the opinion that UFOs are normal phenomena, or have called a false phenomenon, and three said they believe UFOs as "real." Three made remarks "rejection" of the subject as a whole, and four said they have an open mind about this.

A part of these reports explicit, several correspondents said they had witnessed phenomena air that they had been unable to identify, but did not describe a specific event in detail. One person thought that the phenomena may have been identified if it had been competent in meteorology. Others have said he frequently saw what he believed to be shooting stars. Another person recalled having observed an event he could not identify at the time but which turned out to be launching a missile from the base of Vandenberg AFB.

An airplane pilot with 41 years experience, many of the night, a lot of observations of meteors, satellites and other objects. On a six-hour flight from Honolulu to Nandi, he has seen in the past four satellites (in the form of points seen by the light reflected from a distance of 150-200 n.mi.). He reported also see meteors as well as space debris burning in emitting light, showing various colors, and resembling the aérolithes.

Another correspondent had referred to an event recorded on film exposed in an experiment rocket at the base of White Sands missile in 1965. Details of this observation were not included in the questionnaire, but I had been communicated at a later date, regardless of the questionnaire. For this reason, the details of this event are not included in this article.

Scientists, as can be seen the reader, respond to a questionnaire about UFOs. The questionnaire sent to the members section of the AIAA San Francisco generated a high proportion of responses, and almost all respondents were willing to give their names. It is likely that the guarantee of anonymity has contributed to the high number of responses.

The responses show no consensus whatsoever about the nature and the scientific importance of the UFO phenomenon. The views cover the whole spectrum of possible answers, "certain" to "impossible" to answer the question, "UFOs represent a scientifically significant phenomenon?"

Of those who have given positive reports (answering "yes" to question 2), some have interpreted their latest observation as a phenomenon known (R3, R.10, and R.16). Some others may in fact be known phenomena. For example, R.5 may have been caused by an experience of a cloud of barium; R.7 could have been a missile launch Vandenberg AFB; R.9 may have been a fire of St. Elme, and R.13 may have been a drag rocket.

On the other hand, some reports are very similar to types of observation UFO classified by Hynek. (8) (Hynek classification is concerned, naturally, only with a comment that could not explain in terms of phenomena or devices known.) In particular, R.1, R.5, and the first part of Discs Moving the words R.12; R.3 describes a pair of stationary discs, and the last part of R.12 tells a group of more than ten discs.

It is notable that in 21 or more events involved in the return of the survey, only two précédamment observations have been reported. In no case is a scientist has publicly claimed to have seen a strange phenomenon. Thus it is clear, by this questionnaire, if you want to discover if scientists see UFOs, you should ask them, and you should probably guarantee them anonymity.

This study has certainly achieved its goal. It proves that a group of scientifically qualified persons related phenomena similar to air "UFO reports."

IF THE REAL UFOs ARE NOT THEY SHOULD NOT PRODUCE PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF REAL?

Again, the answer is that they do. There are cases fairly well authenticated covering a wide range "of physical effects." "Car stops are an important class. The UFOs were repeatedly associated with failures of ignition and lighting cars and trucks that came around UFOs or who have been approached by a UFO movements. I think we could assemble a list of four or five dozen such examples from various regions of the world. The interference with radio and TV receivers have been reported many times in conjunction with observations of UFOs. There are examples where UFOs were reported to have landed, and after their departure, holes in the ground, or depressions in the grass or disturbance of vegetation have been described. In many such examples, the obvious reliability of witnesses is high, the probability of hoax or artifice is low. A limited number of examples of residue left are known, but they are not supported by laboratory tests significant, unfortunately.

A physical effect that does not typically occur in conditions where the description of events could appear to be that of supersonic bangs. Although there are a few cases where rapid UFOs have been accompanied by noises explosives that could be associated with supersonic bangs, there are many more examples in which the speed reported corresponded to supersonic speeds, yet no bang has been reported. A small fraction of them can be rationalized by noting that witnesses were located behind a "cone of Mach" UFO crossing, but this will not suffice to eliminate the difficulty. It is estimated that if UFOs are solid objects that can leave depressions in the ground or in the tie railway when they land and are rushing out of sight in a few seconds (as has been repeatedly affirmed by credible witnesses), they should produce supersonic bangs. This is inexplicable and can only speculate unnecessarily there may be ways of eliminating sonic booms that we have not yet discovered, perhaps the answer involves considerations entirely different.

If we include among "the physical effects" those relating to physiology, then there seems to be a lot of strange cases. On several occasions, dizziness and numbness were described by witnesses who were near UFOs, in many cases, the paralysis of a witness pure UFO occurred. These effects could, of course, be purely psychological, caused by fear, but some witnesses appear to have noted these effects as the first indication that something unusual was going to happen. A number of examples of reddened skin, skin heated, and some examples of burns very few municipalities are in the files. These physiological effects are sufficiently different to the need to be careful in trying to generalize. Curiously, dizziness and paralysis particular seem to be reported more widely than any other physiological effects. A person who is almost unaware of the ramifications of the UFO evidence may find the idea absurd to say that people were paralyzed in the vicinity of UFOs, the skeptic might find inconceivable that such cases go unnoticed publications of the press and medical literature. It is the contrary, I am sorry to say, on the basis of my own investigations. I have encountered cases where serious injuries were suffered, and where the obvious risks of damage were involved, yet the witness and his family have found the jokes so much more numerous than the sympathy they had wisest d ' quietly forget the whole thing. In a first step of my investigation I would have considered it as quite incredible; Investigators UFO with a longer experience than mine smile to the report, but they probably smile with a certain understanding. I could cite specific examples to make good of light over there, but I omets for reasons of space limited, however, making a few remarks on this subject in the next section.