FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators


User avatar
SpliFF
Posts: 1224
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 06:51

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by SpliFF » 11 Apr 2011, 11:22

When the FBI starts posting UFO documents it's time to panic. Not because there are aliens landing on Earth - but because it means they're trying to distract all the paranoids from an actual conspiracy in progress.

It's like screaming "LOOK BEHIND YOU! IT'S A FIVE HEADED MONKEY!!!" just before kicking someone in the nuts and running away with their wallet.

Maybe Obama has decided to do another 911?
0 x

Master-Athmos
Posts: 862
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 01:32

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Master-Athmos » 11 Apr 2011, 11:43

Well this would probably be the first kind of resilient evidence for the Roswell legend that pretty much is public for decades now. The information is explicit and you cannot really defame the source as it's as trustworthy as it can get (especially with it being from 1950)...

I guess the time for serious questions and stopping the general agenda of ridiculing the entire topic as crazy nonsense has come...

I have to say though that SpliFF has a point too - everyone should be very careful when such a well kept secret is now meant to become public and probably keeps us and the media busy for quite a while if it turns out to be true (the implications of the existence of another, highly developed species are quite grave)...
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by TradeMark » 11 Apr 2011, 13:38

when did it came public?
0 x

User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by SinbadEV » 11 Apr 2011, 15:29

So we have confirmation that at least one nutjob in the FBI believed some other nutjob in the FBI believed they had recovered flying saucers containing little spacemen...

Awesome.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by smoth » 11 Apr 2011, 16:17

It is just an account nothing in that doc verifies the incident nor does it give any credibility to the account.

"gonna do another 911"
Still worried about floride in the water there spliff?
0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Johannes » 11 Apr 2011, 18:53

If they wanted to do another 911, why would releasing this info help with that at all? They want a reason to declare war vs aliens?
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by KaiserJ » 11 Apr 2011, 20:04

i'm much more inclined to believe in flying saucers than i am in aliens visiting the earth;

successful laboratory experiments (those we know about at least) with anti gravity and levitation all seem to depend on electromagnetic fields; so its not -inconceivable- that someone could have been flying such a craft and had it crash after its drive was somehow interfered with by the field of a radar

who was it? either russians, or the americans themselves working on a sealed project.

big oil and the airlines are in cahoots, why not suppress flying saucers if revealing them would mean a huge profit loss (just like the electric car, and the trolley lines that GM got rid of)
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14564
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Forboding Angel » 11 Apr 2011, 21:58

Minor quibble: GM got rid of electric car / trolly because they aren't cost effective for GM or consumers. Same thing goes for hybrids now.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Pxtl » 11 Apr 2011, 22:04

FBI? UFO? I thought Spring didn't support those old formats.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by KaiserJ » 11 Apr 2011, 22:13

Forboding Angel wrote:Minor quibble: GM got rid of electric car / trolly because they aren't cost effective for GM or consumers. Same thing goes for hybrids now.
they are massively cost-effective for consumers. how could public transit and cheaply fueled vehicles not be?
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Licho » 11 Apr 2011, 22:31

Because its not actually cheaper :) If it was cheaper you would already be driving an electric car..

Batteries have limited recharge cycles and are extremely expensive and usually toxic. Hybrids dont's save enough to compensate for its added cost, especially compared to cheap small engines..
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Licho » 11 Apr 2011, 22:35

Also that document is old and unimportant.
If you want to find really interesting UFO cases, search for Iran incident (fight UFO chase) or Maelstrom AFB incident (UFO associated with unexpected shutdown of ICBMs)

Both reported by officials. Iran UFO case is my most favourite.
0 x

User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by SinbadEV » 11 Apr 2011, 22:40

Licho wrote:Because its not actually cheaper :) If it was cheaper you would already be driving an electric car..

Batteries have limited recharge cycles and are extremely expensive and usually toxic. Hybrids dont's save enough to compensate for its added cost, especially compared to cheap small engines..
I read somewhere that if demand was as high for hybrid or electric vehicles they would be cost effective.

The other factor I've heard is that there is a conspiracy between the car part companies and oil companies... namely that combustion engines make more money for the car part companies through wear and tear (part replacement) and oil companies make more on selling gas and part oil (fewer moving parts in an electrical vehicle means less grease and fewer parts needing to be replaced.)
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by KaiserJ » 11 Apr 2011, 22:52

idk licho i think that theres a lot of consumer resistance to electric cars based on myth rather than fact; the upkeep costs are attributed mainly to costly battery replacements but with designs differing from petrol-powered cars like a single-gear system, electric cars theoretically put less wear on their parts and cost less for upkeep overall.

i guess what i'm getting at is that in theory an electric cars main upkeep cost would be battery replacement rather than the myriad of other parts that can fail in an internal combustion system. its early in the "resurgence" of electric cars; i haven't seen a single "attractive" one on the road yet, but i think in the next few years as international companies compete with each-other to enter the electric market (have you seen that new renault electric? it looks pretty nice IMO)

but fair enough, electric cars fall into a questionable savings category (at least until they become more widespread and data comparisons using real-world results rather than projections can be easily examined)

but my point wasn't really about electric cars at all ;) it was about a potentially world-changing technology that might have been placed under wraps by an industry thats existence depends on massive fuel-based expenditures

the fact that they would classify a document like this of questionable sensitive nature (be it true or not) as it is just sort of a "kooky sighting" makes me wonder what other things they might have stashed away with actual objective/damning evidence (not to do with UFOs, but anything in general) for various reasons.

edit : yes sinbad, im not sure if i agree about a conspiracy per se, but if electric cars will reduce the need for part replacements, then it would be a no-brainer for the parts companies to slam the idea outright
0 x

User avatar
bobthedinosaur
Blood & Steel Developer
Posts: 2695
Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by bobthedinosaur » 12 Apr 2011, 03:59

0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Johannes » 12 Apr 2011, 07:27

Also I'd like to point out that mass car ownership is a nazi idea to start with!
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14564
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Forboding Angel » 12 Apr 2011, 07:47

@kai: the batteries for electric cars absolutely rape the environment. In fact, the factory that produces the nickel crap used in the prius is in canada, and there is a mile radius dead zone around the factory (actually it's bigger now). But basically these parts end up getting shipped from the us to japan to canada to end up with an assembled battery.

Obviously that process could be better, but the big issue of batteries raping the environment is huge. Think of the total percentage of hybrids on the road in the us and that damage they cause. Both percentages are small. If you then replace every car on the road in the us with a hybrid, that equals envirorape on a gigantic scale which far surpasses fossil fuels.

There are a lot of things to consider, like the fact that electricity is far less efficient per fuel put in than energy coming out compared to conventional combustion engines.

The electric car never had a chance.

GM is currently working on a hydrogen fuel cell car and has been doing field testing for several years now (the Chevrolet Hydrogen Fuel Cell Equinox SUV), and from what I hear things are progressing nicely, so possibly in a few years we will actually have a fuel efficient vehicle. but let me point out that if it were actually cost efficient at the moment, chevy wouldn't be selling gas cars any more (because on a wide scale, hydrogen is much cheaper). One of the big issues tho is that the fuel cell only lasts for about 50,000 miles and needs a refill every 200 miles.

To put that in perspective, my 97 intrepid gets 33 mpg and has an 18 gallon tank and currently has 227,000 miles on the odometer. That means that i can drive 3 times further in my current 14 year old car than I could in this brand new energy efficient vehicle. Essentially, that is what car manufacturers are up against. Like it or not, fossil fuels are the most efficient fuel we have for transportation (unless you count nukes, but do you really want a nuke powered car?).
0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Johannes » 12 Apr 2011, 07:59

Nuke powered cars eh? Sounds cost efficient all right...
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: FBI says radar facility crashed UFO

Post by Licho » 12 Apr 2011, 08:45

There was a nuke powered aircraft :-)

So yeah, simple thermal energy converter could sure power your car.
But I dont thjink you could get 60kW of peak power from it .. like from normal petrol engine..

But seriously, is not so hard to start new company an here is enough cmpetition, if electric was better, some company in some country would be making huge profit of it.

Wait few years until oil is many times more expensive.

I suspected electric cars wil be extremely annoying .. drive 150km and then recharge for x hours on recharge station?
Keep it idle for few weeks and then call service to tow it to nearest recharge spot?

Dont forget majority of people in majority of countries dont simply have garage to plug it over night :-)
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”