If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The FBI would like to clarify that the recently discovered memo sent to Hoover in 1950 which stated that three flying saucers with pilots inside crashed near Roswell NM, in no way means that flying saucers crashed near Roswell NM, no sir, no how   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 275
    More: Strange, FBI, Roswell NM, Roswell, New Mexico, UFO, memoranda  
•       •       •

20935 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 4:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



275 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 07:17:07 AM
Eh, if it claimed 1 it would have been possibly believable. Supposing somehow 3 all suffered castrophic failures and all managed to fail at the same time is a bit unbelievable.
 
2013-03-28 09:20:53 AM

TheBigJerk: Huh, ~250 posts and no, "Aliens are human time-travelers from the future," yet?


F*cking goobacks.
 
2013-03-28 09:29:01 AM
Holy Shiatsnacks, that timecube site is out of control.  I think the notebooks that John Doe wrote in Seven are easier to understand.
 
2013-03-28 10:01:44 AM

J. Frank Parnell: I have no doubt we're being visited, because of experiences i've had.


Would you care to share? I've seen and heard a few unexplainable things in my time, but I've always been hoping for one which I couldn't rationalize away. I love UFO/alien encounter stories, and am going to check out the documentaries on your profile when I've got the time, but if you'd be inclined to share yours, I'd love to hear it. Even if by email.
 
2013-03-28 10:10:21 AM

meyerkev: But they had actual flying saucers at one point, thanks to Nazi science.


Pictured: Nazi science

static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-03-28 12:24:37 PM

eggrolls: Oh yeah?  Then YOU explain how one day we suddenly had Velcro!


Stay Klassy!
 
2013-03-28 01:20:07 PM

nymersic: So... what if I've seen a UFO?  The same sort thousands of others have seen?  No, not a flying saucer (haha, flying saucer, who believes in such nonsense) - but a Flying Triangle!

No... really.  Those who have never heard of them, Google the thing.  Pretty simple.  I've seen one - watched it for minutes.  Silent, hovering, black triangle, with a white light in each corner (not red lights, as many see); if it was a human plane low enough to look that big, then I'd see it fly past me in 15 seconds; if it was high enough to appear to move so slow, I doubt it would be in our atmosphere anymore, and ... it wouldn't suddenly disappear, either.  Yep, the thing totally vanished in an instant.  My cell phone in 2003 was a cheapo without a camera, not that I could have taken a decent picture back then anyway.  Was the middle of nowhere in South Carolina.  I'd just joined the military, and at that time in my life, I told myself it was just something military that they hid from the public.  I was naive back then... I didn't realize how incompetent and technically backwards the military was, and I hadn't realized how advanced the technology to hover such a craft must be.  Took me years to become the crazy tin-foil hat wearing nutter I am today, in that I conclude such a craft couldn't possibly have been human.

I have trouble even wording this seriously, because society makes me want to laugh at it... but I am totally serious.  I'm a sort of a smart guy, with experience in engineering, and I've no doubt that I've seen an Unidentified Flying Object of extra-terrestrial origin.

/seriously.
//report I typed up years ago:  http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/057/S57822.html    - even has a link to a Fark thread involving these things..


Don't feel bad  I saw the same thing in Tennessee  http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/049/S49488.html
 
2013-03-28 02:39:41 PM

runner_one: Don't feel bad  I saw the same thing in Tennessee  http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/049/S49488.html


Meth, 190-proof Everclear, and inbreeding. It's the perfect trifecta!
 
2013-03-28 03:32:19 PM

mbillips: Hey, if anyone wants to start a political party based on disbelief in conspiracy theories, count me in.


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-03-28 03:39:17 PM

gweilo8888: runner_one: Don't feel bad  I saw the same thing in Tennessee  http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/049/S49488.html

Meth, 190-proof Everclear, and inbreeding. It's the perfect trifecta!


None drinker, none drug user, and if you read the report there were two of us that saw it.
 
2013-03-28 03:56:42 PM
runner_one:None drinker, none drug user, and if you read the report there were two of us that saw it.

Which proves nothing except that there are two people who are mentally incompetent and/or flat-out lying for a bit of attention.

/I notice you didn't address inbreeding ;-)
 
2013-03-28 05:25:18 PM
No worries. See, the government has a high-powered radar that shoots down the flying saucers that traveled light years to get here. So, no need to panic people.
 
2013-03-28 07:56:01 PM

blatz514: cartmans_evil_twin: I like the Weeners:

I'd rather see the UFOs memo on the FBI.

Hmm, I think you just got owned by the Weeners pwn.


Yup. And likewise.
 
2013-03-28 08:05:29 PM

reimanr06: Silverstaff: ThrobblefootSpectre: Lollol. I suppose if I said "Two nuns and a gorilla walked into a bar, and the bartender says..." you would stop me and ask for a citation.

Well, when you say something that contradicts all established Federal law, regulations and policy on a subject matter in such a way that it sounds absurd to somebody with professional knowledge of the subject, asking for a citation is appropriate.

Electromax: Who decides what the President isn't allowed to see?

While it is possible for somebody to create a SCI compartment and then try to keep it so tight that nobody even knows the compartment exists, the problem comes when the President would have an actual need-to-know for the issue.  He might not have to be briefed on it so he wouldn't know to ask about this little black program, but if it's actually relevant to him, trying to hide it is a Very Bad Idea.  Legally, the President decides, through delegated authority of the Director of National Intelligence and other Original Classification Authorities (OCA's), who can see what with regards to ALL classified information in the US.  (See also Executive Orders 13526 and 12333, DoD Instruction 5210.87, DoD Directive 5210.55 and Intelligence Community Directive 704, as well as the National Security Act of 1947),

Look at it this way, who would have the legal authority to classify information in a way the POTUS couldn't see?  Everybody who has the legal authority to classify that information derives that authority as delegated by the POTUS through Executive Orders.  Nobody has the authority to classify ANYTHING without POTUS approval (even if highly delegated).

Would a sitting president have the power to classify things so that future presidents couldn't see it?


Yes, but the future president would have the power to declassify it.

/divide by zero
 
2013-03-28 10:21:40 PM

gweilo8888: runner_one:None drinker, none drug user, and if you read the report there were two of us that saw it.

Which proves nothing except that there are two people who are mentally incompetent and/or flat-out lying for a bit of attention.

/I notice you didn't address inbreeding ;-)


Good with the insults there.  Typical reaction.
Flying triangles exist, face it. Where do they come from?   Maybe right here on earth.
 
2013-03-28 11:27:35 PM

runner_one: gweilo8888: runner_one:None drinker, none drug user, and if you read the report there were two of us that saw it.

Which proves nothing except that there are two people who are mentally incompetent and/or flat-out lying for a bit of attention.

/I notice you didn't address inbreeding ;-)

Good with the insults there.  Typical reaction.
Flying triangles exist, face it. Where do they come from?   Maybe right here on earth.


Yeah, no they don't. A whack job who can post random comments on the internet isn't going to persuade me otherwise, but fair does for trying.

You lost me at "escorted by helicopter". I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you couldn't tell the difference between an aircraft -- stealth bomber, say -- and a UFO, but the difference between the stall speed of the bomber and the maximum cruise speed of the helicopter is going to be paper thin, and flying in close formation is likely to have somebody flying in dirty air, reducing that margin even further.

So more than likely, you're just making it up.

/By the way, swimming dodecahedrons exist, too. It's the underwater squid men. I saw one once, and I've posted about it on the internet, so it's undeniable. They just exist, face it.
 
2013-03-29 02:37:18 AM

sxacho: J. Frank Parnell: I have no doubt we're being visited, because of experiences i've had.

Would you care to share? I've seen and heard a few unexplainable things in my time, but I've always been hoping for one which I couldn't rationalize away. I love UFO/alien encounter stories, and am going to check out the documentaries on your profile when I've got the time, but if you'd be inclined to share yours, I'd love to hear it. Even if by email.


His experiences are watching shows on the History and Sci-Fi Channels.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:20 PM

Psycat: Why, of all the countless thousands of UFO photographs, there's not a single one where there's a sharp image of the actual gear on the spaceship?  Some UFO reports have the things floating above a city for minutes--long enough for any professional photographers to run in their studio, grab a large-format camera, attach a zoom lens, and get a damn sharp image already.  And with all the powerful digital cameras out there, why the blurry photos of objects that look like some hubcap flung in the air?

I think I know the obvious answer:  the Bavarian Illuminati, along with the reverse vampires, created a magical ray that blurs photos of UFOs.  SOLVED!


It's probably because most sightings aren't the saucer type, but balls of light moving at exceptional speed with bizarre flight characteristics. Same description as the "foo fighters" seen in world war 2
 
2013-03-29 02:09:45 PM

Somaticasual: It's probably because most sightings aren't the saucer type, but balls of light moving at exceptional speed with bizarre flight characteristics. Same description as the "foo fighters" seen in world war 2


Or, you know, because it's made-up nonsense.
 
2013-03-30 12:30:37 AM

gweilo8888: Somaticasual: It's probably because most sightings aren't the saucer type, but balls of light moving at exceptional speed with bizarre flight characteristics. Same description as the "foo fighters" seen in world war 2

Or, you know, because it's made-up nonsense.


Once upon a time the theory that the brain was the center of control for the body was considered "made up nonsense".
 
2013-03-30 03:07:35 AM

Frederick: Once upon a time the theory that the brain was the center of control for the body was considered "made up nonsense".


Ah, the old "Just because some things people used to believe were wrong, we should believe everything is true and never apply rational thought" defense.

Tried, tested, and utterly moronic. Try harder next time.
 
2013-03-30 04:21:07 AM

gweilo8888: Frederick: Once upon a time the theory that the brain was the center of control for the body was considered "made up nonsense".

Ah, the old "Just because some things people used to believe were wrong, we should believe everything is true and never apply rational thought" defense.

Tried, tested, and utterly moronic. Try harder next time.


You've got a lot of learning to do about logic.  For example, you've just created a strawman argument (bolded).  I merely correctly pointed out that sometimes things considered to be "made up nonsense" turns out to be correct.  The point being; an open mind is more constructive than a closed one.
 
2013-03-30 10:55:24 AM

Frederick: You've got a lot of learning to do about logic.  For example, you've just created a strawman argument (bolded).  I merely correctly pointed out that sometimes things considered to be "made up nonsense" turns out to be correct.  The point being; an open mind is more constructive than a closed one.


And I've merely pointed out that proposing we shouldn't question things that fly in the face of all available logic because sometimes people have been wrong about completely unrelated things that are actually quite logical in the past is utter nonsense.

Only a vacuous idiot would believe in UFOs and alien visitors, because there is not a single level on which they make sense. The very laws that almost guarantee the existence of independently-evolved life on other planets around other stars in other galaxies also almost guarantee that life has never been anywhere near us.

But good job ignoring the obvious and whipping out words you only half-understand. I'm fine for you to continue spouting all the nonsense you like; this thread has aged out and you're on ignore anyway.
 
2013-03-30 02:29:27 PM

gweilo8888: Frederick: You've got a lot of learning to do about logic.  For example, you've just created a strawman argument (bolded).  I merely correctly pointed out that sometimes things considered to be "made up nonsense" turns out to be correct.  The point being; an open mind is more constructive than a closed one.

And I've merely pointed out that proposing we shouldn't question things that fly in the face of all available logic because sometimes people have been wrong about completely unrelated things that are actually quite logical in the past is utter nonsense.

Only a vacuous idiot would believe in UFOs and alien visitors, because there is not a single level on which they make sense. The very laws that almost guarantee the existence of independently-evolved life on other planets around other stars in other galaxies also almost guarantee that life has never been anywhere near us.

But good job ignoring the obvious and whipping out words you only half-understand. I'm fine for you to continue spouting all the nonsense you like; this thread has aged out and you're on ignore anyway.


I hate to tell you, but even if you count the numerous "unidentified" sightings of the B2 stealth bomber when it was being tested, UFOs exist.

Whether or not they're aliens is a different question. And I can tell you that something's up there being tested. I saw one of the ball type, traversing the night sky at a speed probably 10x of a traditional aircraft (and faster than a shooting star). It covered the night sky in 1.5 seconds, along a flightpath that commercial planes take around 10 to 15 seconds to cover (at what, 500 to 700 mph?). It was faster than an SR-71 if you scaled the speeds up, yet completely silent. And before you assume, no - it wasn't a shooting star, i've seen several of those and they were a lot slower since they were higher altitudes.And calling folks "Vacuous idiots" really just makes it look like you're resorting to childish name calling defensively. Let your counter arguments stand on their own merit - and if they don't stand, don't make them.And for the record, I'm more inclined to assume they're electromagnetic craft developed by either the russians or the americans during the early cold war, not little green men.  They clearly don't use widely known propulsion methods, since they don't leave a contrail or an audible signature (well, one that reaches the ground anyhow. Even a sphere should have a little air rushing by..)

There are hundreds of these sightings per month, by people of all levels of credibility and stature in society. And we have to assume that only a small percentage will report them. Check mufon.org, etc.

Summary:
Just because you don't believe in something, or have never witnessed it personally, that doesn't mean you're right any more than it would make me right to assume it was aliens.
 
2013-03-30 08:22:08 PM

gweilo8888: Frederick: You've got a lot of learning to do about logic.  For example, you've just created a strawman argument (bolded).  I merely correctly pointed out that sometimes things considered to be "made up nonsense" turns out to be correct.  The point being; an open mind is more constructive than a closed one.

And I've merely pointed out that proposing we shouldn't question things that fly in the face of all available logic because sometimes people have been wrong about completely unrelated things that are actually quite logical in the past is utter nonsense.

Only a vacuous idiot would believe in UFOs and alien visitors, because there is not a single level on which they make sense. The very laws that almost guarantee the existence of independently-evolved life on other planets around other stars in other galaxies also almost guarantee that life has never been anywhere near us.

But good job ignoring the obvious and whipping out words you only half-understand. I'm fine for you to continue spouting all the nonsense you like; this thread has aged out and you're on ignore anyway.


What nonsense did I spout?  Was it where I stated things once thought nonsense turned out to be correct?  Or that an open mind is more constructive than a closed one?  Or that you created a strawman through hyperbole?

People may believe what they wish -you're a dick about it though.
 
Displayed 25 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report