UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters

[El Dave]

What a story!

Now a Russian parliamentarian wants Ilyumzhinov questioned, fearing he may have given the aliens “secret information,” according to the Echo of Moscow radio station.

[zack kruse]

Russian Governor Tells Tale of Alien Abduction, President asked to Investigate

There are articles about this all over the place. Here's another:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2zr9_Bvu7wYlLZCsKpLG9BGrLxA


Jim

I love how the Nationalist leader is worried about secret information being leaked...to aliens. Aliens who have the technology that allows for interstellar travel. They're definitely concerned about Russian government secrets...can you imagine if the aliens had nukes? They probably haven't figured out an adequate delivery system for them, being from space and all, and with the complicity of this Governor then--well, I don't have to tell you what's next. We'll pledging allegiance to red alien flags, that's what happens next. "One nation under Zorlak the X'ansarian Destroyer of Moons" is what our kids will be saying, instead of the "One nation under the Christian God."

This is all outlined in my new book, which is available for $39.99.

[JimN]

I love how the Nationalist leader is worried about secret information being leaked...to aliens. Aliens who have the technology that allows for interstellar travel. They're definitely concerned about Russian government secrets...can you imagine if the aliens had nukes? They probably haven't figured out an adequate delivery system for them, being from space and all, and with the complicity of this Governor then--well, I don't have to tell you what's next. We'll pledging allegiance to red alien flags, that's what happens next. "One nation under Zorlak the X'ansarian Destroyer of Moons" is what our kids will be saying, instead of the "One nation under the Christian God."

This is all outlined in my new book, which is available for $39.99.

 

Great post, Zack.

Jim

[the other mike]

oohhhhhh shit.

North Korea Claims Success In Nuclear Fusion

full article here:  http://gizmodo.com/5538214/north-korea-claims-success-in-nuclear-fusion

well, i for one welcome our new north korean overlords...

----

well, its as real as unicorns, but i can't help but wonder: what if?
damn you marvel!!!

-mike

ps- i realize the story is neither about ufo's nor ghosts nor monsters. but it is conspiracy theory-ish, so i thought that counts by default.

[JimN]

Lawn creatures:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/JCFoVxKnkAU&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/JCFoVxKnkAU&rel=1</a>

I have no idea what appears on this CC video of creatures crossing a lawn. The presentation on the video is clearly from a UFO conference and it's unfortunate that we don't get a better look at it. However, we can see enough to see that this may be something unusual. My initial impression was that the video showed a bird but the shadows don't look like they fit that explanation. I have no idea what to make of this!

Vince, make sure you check this one out...

Jim

[zack kruse]

Looks like a bird. Also, why is the shadow so far ahead of the animal starting at about 2:49? I smell a fake...

[VinceB]

Vince, make sure you check this one out...

I've seen this one before. Awesome video. Absolutely no idea what those things could be.

[VinceB]

Looks like a bird. Also, why is the shadow so far ahead of the animal starting at about 2:49? I smell a fake...

 

You ain't that pretty, Mr. Kruse.

[zack kruse]

You ain't that pretty, Mr. Kruse.

Oh yes I am. 

[El Dave]

Oh yes I am. 

 

[the other mike]

Looks like a bird. Also, why is the shadow so far ahead of the animal starting at about 2:49? I smell a fake...

wow, you've got the eyes of an eagle. i didn't catch that at all until you mentioned it.  to be fair, the video quality is pretty bad. we're watching a video of a video of a video, so some detail may be lost or warped. plus it would be the shit if this were authentic. doesn't necessarily have to be an ET, but some sort of new undiscovered creature or escaped experiment would be cool too, just for the sheer wonder of it all.

-mike

[zack kruse]

wow, you've got the eyes of an eagle. i didn't catch that at all until you mentioned it.  to be fair, the video quality is pretty bad. we're watching a video of a video of a video, so some detail may be lost or warped. plus it would be the shit if this were authentic. doesn't necessarily have to be an ET, but some sort of new undiscovered creature or escaped experiment would be cool too, just for the sheer wonder of it all.

-mike

video of a video or not, that strikes me as suspicious and whatever is lost from transation from shitty recording to shitty recording to shitty recording (which also really harms their case), that kind of disparity seems odd.

also, why not just turn the video over to an actual biologist, a videographer, or someone else trained in how to consider these things? why sneak it off to Univision and then Univision didn't release the tape to someone who could offer an educated opinion? instead they give it to a guy presenting at a UFO conference and tell him that THEY WANTED HIM TO SAY IT WAS AN ALIEN? then the presenter effectively says, "i don't know what it is. weird, right? maybe it's an alien, elves (he actually says elves) or other unknown creature."--that's not an argument, evidence, or even an examination of the video. it's just a dude saying, "hey, this is weird", apparently without being to critical of it. there are too many red flags.

if it were my video I would want credibility and fast because in the event that it is a non-doctored tape AND it is something previously unknown, then that's literally potentially earth shattering news and would be treated as such by the scientific community. if it just a heron or a crane or some other kind of known wildlife, no big loss.

ahem. uhm. sorry for the rant.

[the other mike]

no worries.
not being into UFOlogy, i wouldn't know what to do if something like this fell into my lap. i'd probably call the TV networks like the guy did, and pass the buck.

----

i didn't know about these:

the bridgewater triangle-

http://io9.com/5556944/the-bridgewater-triangle-massachusetts-epicenter-of-weirdness

"sky spirals"-

http://gizmodo.com/5422792/this-is-how-the-mysterious-giant-spiral-happened
(watch the video to see it de-bunked/explained)


-mike

[JimN]

Looks like a bird. Also, why is the shadow so far ahead of the animal starting at about 2:49? I smell a fake...

I doubt that shadow indicates a fake, Zack. More likely, it's further indication that we're looking at a bird or, if it's truly something unusual, a creature with very skinny legs. The shadow probably looks like it's ahead of the creature because the angle, combined with the crummy resolution of viewing a video of a video, is eliminating the thin shadow of the legs.

I've watched it 5 times and each time I watch it, it looks more like a bird to me. I'd love to get a look at the original video to get a better view.

Jim

[JimN]

video of a video or not, that strikes me as suspicious and whatever is lost from transation from shitty recording to shitty recording to shitty recording (which also really harms their case), that kind of disparity seems odd.

also, why not just turn the video over to an actual biologist, a videographer, or someone else trained in how to consider these things? why sneak it off to Univision and then Univision didn't release the tape to someone who could offer an educated opinion? instead they give it to a guy presenting at a UFO conference and tell him that THEY WANTED HIM TO SAY IT WAS AN ALIEN? then the presenter effectively says, "i don't know what it is. weird, right? maybe it's an alien, elves (he actually says elves) or other unknown creature."--that's not an argument, evidence, or even an examination of the video. it's just a dude saying, "hey, this is weird", apparently without being to critical of it. there are too many red flags.

I agree that the researcher wasn't critical of it but I wouldn't assume that just because he's presenting the film at a conference with little more than a "what is it?" that it means he isn't having it analyzed by someone qualified to examine it properly. Some researchers take such steps and some don't. I have no idea who this guy is so he may be the type who would simply show the film, say it's weird and move on. On the other hand, he may be the sort who will have it analyzed. I've run across this sort of thing at UFO conferences in the past (yes, I've attended a few). Some researchers will uncritically screen a film, say it's weird and never do anything about it. Others may just screen it before analysis because it's something that dropped into their lap shortly before the conference and they think it's worth showing. I remember one instance where film of a crop circle being created by balls of lights was shown. The researcher thought it was interesting but didn't know if it was faked or not. He expressed his reservations about it because he thought it was too good to be true. After the conference, he had it analyzed and determined it was a fake. I thought that was to his credit.

Jim

[zack kruse]

I doubt that shadow indicates a fake, Zack. More likely, it's further indication that we're looking at a bird or, if it's truly something unusual, a creature with very skinny legs. The shadow probably looks like it's ahead of the creature because the angle, combined with the crummy resolution of viewing a video of a video, is eliminating the thin shadow of the legs.

That may very well be. I thought about that after I posted. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were right. It was just my gut reaction

[JimN]

That may very well be. I thought about that after I posted. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were right. It was just my gut reaction

Understood. I'm impressed that you noticed that! I didn't even see it. I was looking at the head and torso area of the creature and the width of the shadow as it walked.

Jim

[zack kruse]

I agree that the researcher wasn't critical of it but I wouldn't assume that just because he's presenting the film at a conference with little more than a "what is it?" that it means he isn't having it analyzed by someone qualified to examine it properly.

Totally plausible. Also, I believe that he mentions that they are still looking at it. But doesn't it seem at least a little sensational, if not irresponsible, to even present it without some sort of corroborating information/research? Because, really he's got nothing at the time of this video except for an audience that, frankly, is more than likely pre-disposed to assume that it is an alien or unknown creature.

Some researchers take such steps and some don't. I have no idea who this guy is so he may be the type who would simply show the film, say it's weird and move on. On the other hand, he may be the sort who will have it analyzed. I've run across this sort of thing at UFO conferences in the past (yes, I've attended a few). Some researchers will uncritically screen a film, say it's weird and never do anything about it. Others may just screen it before analysis because it's something that dropped into their lap shortly before the conference and they think it's worth showing. I remember one instance where film of a crop circle being created by balls of lights was shown. The researcher thought it was interesting but didn't know if it was faked or not. He expressed his reservations about it because he thought it was too good to be true. After the conference, he had it analyzed and determined it was a fake. I thought that was to his credit.

Jim

That's my biggest problem. If they're not going to analyze it, they're not actually researchers and are basically reducing themselves to just guys showing videos of potentially weird shit--worse, potentially faked weird shit--to an audience that, again, is largely pre-disposed to just believe what they have to say. Even presenting it with the caveat that it may be fake, folks (unlike you, obviously) are likely to not remember that and just remember the sensational video that they saw that likely re-affirms what they already hold true.

There are A LOT of people who actually take the necessary steps and do the research and I find that admirable. They're taking an interest in a field and doing what is necessary to build it into a legitimate field of study by seeking out real evidence and leads worth following up on. But the guys that don't really seem to over shadow them and give us the David Icke's of the world. (not that David Icke is necessarily a UFO guy, but the premise is essentially the same).

[JimN]

Totally plausible. Also, I believe that he mentions that they are still looking at it. But doesn't it seem at least a little sensational, if not irresponsible, to even present it without some sort of corroborating information/research?

It is somewhat sensational but it's not necessarily irresponsible. You're correct that the audience may be comprised primarily of people who are predisposed to assume the Walker in the Yard (my just-coined Lovecraftian name for it!) is an alien or unknown creature. However, my experience at these conferences has been that there are also skeptically and critically-minded people in the audience. I've seen more than one speaker deservedly challenged during the Q&A section of a presentation for the info, evidence or complete nonsense he put forth. Screening a film that's still being analyzed could actually yield helpful feedback from an audience member who sees something suspicious in it (as you did) or who has experience with similar films, etc.

That's my biggest problem. If they're not going to analyze it, they're not actually researchers and are basically reducing themselves to just guys showing videos of potentially weird shit--worse, potentially faked weird shit--to an audience that, again, is largely pre-disposed to just believe what they have to say. Even presenting it with the caveat that it may be fake, folks (unlike you, obviously) are likely to not remember that and just remember the sensational video that they saw that likely re-affirms what they already hold true.

True, but people that predisposed to believe anything may be a lost cause in the first place.

There are A LOT of people who actually take the necessary steps and do the research and I find that admirable. They're taking an interest in a field and doing what is necessary to build it into a legitimate field of study by seeking out real evidence and leads worth following up on. But the guys that don't really seem to over shadow them and give us the David Icke's of the world. (not that David Icke is necessarily a UFO guy, but the premise is essentially the same).

Well said! It's unfortunate that the researchers who really make a sincere effort are often overshadowed by the likes of David Icke. The lure of the sensational seems to overwhelm their critical faculties (or they just aren't interested in using them in the first place).

Jim

[zack kruse]

I like you, Jim. I seriously always like talking to you about this kind of stuff. Have some karma.

That makes perfect sense about the audience feed back and it's reassuring to know that there are people who will openly challenge lecturers when they are presenting BS. I guess I'm not really surprised by that as much as I'm just glad to know it actually happens as my only experience is from watching the researchers and "researchers" in debates, on TV, and on YouTube (which has yet to yield a positive experiences regarding how they consider data) and not at an actual conference.

I also agree about the lost causes...but in the case of the lost cause, it's not them that I'm worried about as much as I am worried about the speaker/presenter/whathaveyou taking advantage of those lost causes and their wallets. Which, again, brings me back to that confirmation bias and state of irresponsibility (both for the lost causes and those who are less critical). Does that make sense?

In some cases I think the researchers themselves (even some of the legit ones) are lost causes themselves. But that's just my impression of them and not really on topic with what we were discussing.