ВНИМАНИЕ! На форуме началось голосование в конкурсе - астрофотография месяца АПРЕЛЬ!
0 Пользователей и 1 Гость просматривают эту тему.
Hi, Joe!Thank you a lot for visiting our site. What is your experience in Russian language? Can you read and understand russian text?
The fact is that our community deals with amateur astronomy. So almost all are astronomers - some that was graduated as astronomers, and some amateurs that prefer to look at sky for their own pleasure.
Actually the topic that you have mentioned was loked by moderator due to a nervous situation that was formed there. May be this topic will be unlocked in a week.
So, this topic was about UFO as an object to investigate. Our community was broken into two parts - one part was for the natural origin of UFO issues and another for extraterrestrial origin of that issues.
We try to describe our position with some official documents. As for me (I am a kind of UFO-sceptic) - I am waiting for this GB Ministry of Defence document to clarify and stress the natural origin of almost all UFOs ever seen by people.
So, ones more, thank you for you interest to our topic. We are very glad to receive your UFO papers that you want do discuss. But, sorry for that - the main discussion language is Russian - not all community can read and replay in English.Best regards, Alexey.
Господа, напоминаю, язык форума - русский. Так что лучше переводить не вопросы, а ответы.Если тема касается уфологии, то лучше подождать открытия "Английских охотников..." (если оно вообще состоится).
Oh, it looks majestic! Please, tell us - how did you find this site? Is it really popular in GB?
И какие факты есть, подтверждающие РЕАЛЬНО наличие этих объектов?
Hello,Before I answer, I would first like to say that the files are now available at the Ministry of Defence web site:http://tinyurl.com/kqll2There are a total of 28 files, 207 Mb.
The author of the report was very careful to say that many UFO reports were of mundane objects, planets, satellites, ordinary aircraft etc. Of the small proportion that could not be so easily explained, the witnesses (in general, there were some hoaxes) saw _something_.
The study used reports made to the MoD between 1985 and 1995 mainly. The details from these (very brief) reports were input to an access database, and statistical analysis carried out.
Of the reports for which no clear explanation could be found, many had common features which led the author of the report to conclude that they could only be caused by plasma type phenomena, both known and understood, and probably exotic and unknown type(s).
The author acknowledged the poor quality of the source data (the MoD reports), and it is my opinion that he took the witness descriptions too literally, accepting many of them as accurate when in fact they probably were not.
One example of something that I find it difficult to accept from the report conclusions is that because there was a correlation between report numbers and meteor showers, meteors can create free-standing plasma phenomena which witnesses report as UFOs (UAP). I personally find it more likely that they mis-reported the meteors themselves, and the formation of plasma caused by meteors is an unnecessary conclusion.
My research focus has always been the UK, so I know very little about the Russian UFO scene. I am aware that there are some very good and respected researchers in the Ukraine and in Russia - an organisation called RIAP is regarded with great respect amongst western ufologists, their web site is at: http://www.geocities.com/riap777/staff.html
I have no knowledge of Mr Shurinov, but I have just checked internet references to him (including http://boris-shurinov.info/), it appears that he is an able academic and UFO researcher, and is not shy about expressing his opinions. In ufology it is very necessary to maintain a reasonably high level of scepticism while not rejecting everything without checking it first. From the small amount that I have read about him, he either has the correct balance, or is possibly too sceptical (something that I may also be guilty of).
In regard to the story of a crashed UFO:I can only guess that this relates to what is known in the West as "The Roswell incident". It is reported that in July 1947 an UFO crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, USA. There is contemporary media evidence that this was reported in the newspapers world-wide and on radio broadcasts. Shortly after the news came out, the Army Air Force (now the USAF) called a press conference and showed some wreckage of what they said was a weather balloon, and media interest died off.
Many years later, several ufologists decided to follow up the story, and a number of books were published about it, the most noted authors being Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman (who worked for some time in the nuclear industry), and Don Schmitt. In the course of research by these and others, many witnesses came forward to substantiate the story, and a tale emerged about at least one alien body having been retrieved from the wreckage. The story has become more and more complicated, as new "witnesses" emerge, and multiple crash locations and dates are added to the story.
Between 1984 and 1987 several western ufologists were either offered or sent documents which appeared official, describing the establishment of a specialist team of scientists and military personell known as "Majestic 12" or "MJ-12". Since then, some documents have emerged from official archives which appear to support the existence of MJ-12, but at least one document is now accepted to have been faked. In my mind, this casts great doubt on the other documents.
The story gets worse. In 1995, some film emerged purportedly of an autopsy carried out on an alien body recovered from the Roswell crash. Only this year, the creators of the film have admitted that this is also a hoax.
I have not taken a great interest in the Roswell incident, primarily because I am not able to carry out any useful research into it from England. My instinct tells me that something really occured, and that it was not a weather balloon (though it might possibly have been a balloon used for a sensitive military project). I do not believe that it involved aliens or their technology, though. I have to say that this is only an opinion, expressed on very little personal research.
In regard to official documents evaluating UFOs:There are some, mainly American official records of evaluation of UFOs. None of them that I am aware of conclude that the phenomena is of an extraterrestrial origin, but it is also true that all of the official investigations have flaws. This is also true of Condign, unfortunately.I hope that answers your questions, but I would like to point out that my knowledge of ufology outside the UK is weak.
here are some, mainly American official records of evaluation of UFOs. None of them that I am aware of conclude that the phenomena is of an extraterrestrial origin, but it is also true that all of the official investigations have flaws
В основном имеются американские документы. Однако ни в одином из них не делается вывод о внеземном НЛО, но официальные исследования не лишены недостатков
Но Вы видите причины делать иные выводы, не так ли?Могу ли я попросить Вас представить на обсуждение достоверную информацию?
If I understand correctly, you think that I accept the extra-terrestrial Hypothesis? If so, I am afraid you are mistaken.I don't reject it completely, but I consider it very unlikely. So far I have found nothing to support the hypothesis under scrutiny.
I only have any detailed knowledge about the UK, particularly the role of the MoD in ufology. From examining the archives and information obtained under the FoIA, I can only conclude that the MoD have no serious interest in UFOs. This is supported by numerous official documents, the main ones being a report in 1951 (report No.7, the Flying Saucer Working Party), and more recently, the Condign report.
To explain, when an UFO report is made to the Mod (from military and civilian sources), reports are received by a department called DAS (Directorate of Air Staff(Secretariat)3). This department has had several names over the years, including Sec(AS)2a and S4f(Air). This is the only MoD department that has direct contact with the public in relation to UFOs. There has always been only 1 person with the duty to check UFO reports. This person also had other duties, which have altered over the years. Other duties that they have been responsible for include clearance of diplomatic flights, complaints about low-flying aircraft, and dealing with enquiries from Members of Parliament (MPs) and drafting replies to those enquiries. Currently the person has responsibility for administering requests made under the FoIA. Typically only 25 % of one person's time is spent dealing with UFO reports.
A report can arrive by several methods. If a civilian reports a UFO to a Royal Air Force (RAF) station, the person at the station will record the details on a form and send it as a signal (teletype) to the MoD. The same method is used for reports by military pilots.If a civilian or policeman makes a report to a Police station, the details are recorded on a similar form, then there are several methods that this might use to be sent to the MoD. The Police can telephone the details to a local RAF station (and the previous process will be used); They can telephone the Air Operations Centre and the details will be recorded and passed to DAS the following morning; in some cases they can send a teletype directly to the MoD; finally, they can send the handwritten report via the postal service.
Reports made by civilian pilots or by civilians to civilian airports are normally forwarded to the Military air traffic control services by telephone and then sent by teletype to the Air Force Operations Centre, but in many cases they are just sent by the postal service.The information on the reports is very poor, and may have been transcribed twice before it reaches the MoD. Examples of the reports can be viewed at:http://www.uk-ufo.org/temp/CAA%20report.jpg (report originating from civil airport)http://www.uk-ufo.org/temp/Police%20example.jpg (report by civilian to police, telephoned to Military air traffic control then sent by signal to the Air Force Operations Centre. Note that this report was anonymous).
The UFO desk at the MoD is only manned during normal office hours, so no action is taken unless the Air Force Operations Centre regard it as a potential threat, so these reports will not even be examined by the UFO desk until at least 09:00 the following morning (except weekends, when a report made on a Friday night would not receive attention until Monday morning - the situation is even worse when there are public holidays)!The UFO Desk examines the report to try and identify any obvious cause, eg conventional aircraft or astronomical phenomena (eg Venus or meteors). They don't have to actually prove that is what the cause was, but make a judgement based on probability. In rare circumstances, they can request recordings of the radar displays relevant to a report, but this happens only 3 or 4 times a year, if that. The person on the UFO desk very rarely talked to witnesses, and if they did, it was via the telephone (I have found no example of them visiting the location of a report, or interviewing a witness directly, although there are perhaps three or four examples where they requested a local unit to do so).
If the UFO desk think that the report might be of defence significance (ie a threat to our nation, or that it might reveal something useful to our military), then they would refer the report to the intelligence department, DI55. DI55 would assess the defence implications and also try to identify the cause. In many instances they did identify the cause as a satellite overpass, and occasionally, a space re-entry. I have found no record of them deciding that a report was of real defence significance.
In 1976, there was a meeting between S4f(Air) and DI55 to discuss the process. The records of the meeting can be viewed at:http://www.uk-ufo.org/temp/1a.JPG http://www.uk-ufo.org/temp/1b.JPG http://www.uk-ufo.org/temp/1c.JPG
The record is very interesting, and there is a particular paragraph which I should point out on page 2 - paragraph 5 states:"5. Since investigations into the defence implications of alleged UFO sightings might involve highly classified material it was agreed that S4(Air) has no "need to know" about the enquiries made by any specialist branch in the course of an investigation. It followed that detailed reports on such investigations could not be included in the S4 files which would ultimately be disclosed when UFO reports were opened to the public."
This paragraph means that S4f(Air) files should never contain anything that might be considered "of defence significance" because of the risk that the public might gain access to the files. In effect, S4f(Air) is a shop-window, and any real work would be carried out without their knowledge.There are three points to the above;1. The MoD don't think UFOs are very impportant.2. The examples of the information on the forms are typical of the poor data used in Project Condign.3. S4f(Air) (now DAS)was not given full access to UFO-related material. This is further supported by the fact that they were totally unaware of the existence of the Condign report until it was requested under the FoIA by Dave Clarke.
I hope this in some way answers your question.Regards,Joe