The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The 1952 Incident  (Read 15550 times)

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #50 on: 08/01/2011 08:12:07 »
Evidence as appealing as that, is unfortunately very evading. The world just doesn't want to know, and the world which does about these things, there is not enough support to generate that kind of evidence.

I can't provide you overwhelming evidence. I can only state the facts of the situation, and there are many facts in indeed which are often overlooked and not appreciated to their full; which is a strange way of thinking in my books.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #51 on: 08/01/2011 08:47:19 »
The world just doesn't want to know,

I think the World really does want to know.

Unfortunately, the World has been given precious little evidence, unless you include people that keep calling the population of the World ignorant because they will not accept some person's unsubstantiated ideas of so called evidence.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #52 on: 08/01/2011 08:50:07 »
The world just doesn't want to know,

I think the World really does want to know.

Unfortunately, the World has been given precious little evidence, unless you include people that keep calling the population of the World ignorant because they will not accept some person's unsubstantiated ideas of so called evidence.

Not wanting to know, and not knowing are quite different. I would not call people who don't know ignorant, but I would reserve that privalege to those who don't want to know.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #53 on: 08/01/2011 09:06:53 »
Not wanting to know, and not knowing are quite different.


No they're not. We really want to know. Give us something substantial to work on.

Perhaps you are confusing believing with knowing.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #54 on: 08/01/2011 09:21:23 »
Not wanting to know, and not knowing are quite different.


No they're not. We really want to know. Give us something substantial to work on.

Perhaps you are confusing believing with knowing.

If it's as clear cut as not knowing, then it's not being intentionally ignorant. But yes, as element of believing and not knowing was probably in there :)
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #55 on: 08/01/2011 09:22:51 »
Well, either way, bottom line is I do not have damning evidence. Anyone who does know, sure does like to keep it a secret.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #56 on: 09/01/2011 00:35:14 »
Well, either way, bottom line is I do not have damning evidence. Anyone who does know, sure does like to keep it a secret.

I think that is the problem...
For a "science forum"...  the first thing one will ask for is evidence.
And, starting a presentation with a clearly faked video is worse for your case than nothing at all.

The 1952 incident has apparently been declassified.  So, with that and various newspaper reports, there are probably thousands of pages of document relating to the incident.

In one report, I think I saw a note about some "molten metal" being left behind from the incident...  which subsequently has gotten lost.  Meteorite?  Hoax?

I can understand why our government would have had a policy of classifying UFO/Alien research, and how such a tactic would bother conspiracy theorists...  Hopefully such a policy has been reversed.

At this point, I don't believe there is an effort to consciously hide evidence of aliens.

However, I'd be much more interested in seeing some "NEW" evidence of aliens...  or a crashed ship...  or something, rather than chasing down some meteors, weather balloons, or lights in the sky that are 50 years old, with nothing more than a few white dots in an evening sky to go by.

Now...
Consider...  if one of the Voyager or Pioneer probes actually comes close to another star in a few million years.  Perhaps a few billion years as the probes will likely miss the first star they encounter. 

By that time, they will be "dark"...  perhaps generating a fraction of a watt of energy after most of the 238Pu has long since decayed into 234U which would have largely decayed into 230Th.  So the RTG would give off a very faint IR signature. 

The probes could be encased in ice like a comet.  Broken bits from being pelted with micro-meteorites for millions of years.

If one of the probes passed outside of the sun's heliopause, we would likely never detect it...  even if it took a century to pass by the sun.  If it started a long orbit around the sun like many of the comets (maybe one pass every few centuries), we'd probably never notice its uniqueness.  And...  with any luck, if it actually crashed into Earth (rather than Jupiter, Saturn, or Venus), then the only traces of it would be widely scattered pieces of the RTGs...  with a mix of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation decay products, along with some other metal such as a mysterious inclusion of gold, but most of that would disintegrate in the upper atmosphere.

Eventually we may design probes that can be sent to nearby stars, and remain functioning and intact.  But, they likely will have very simple programming, not dancing in the sky and performing interesting light shows. 

If we make a manned colony ship that would take a few centuries, or a few millennia to get to Proxima/Alpha Centauri, then, well, we'd have to build in significant redundancy, but if it was at all functioning, it would be unlikely to just crash.

But, assuming it survived the trip, we would also make an effort to setup a colony... somewhere, Callisto, Mars, Venus, etc... rather than just dancing around the sky and putting on light shows. 

Our current understanding of physics precludes the representation of Aliens just passively visiting Earth and putting on light shows for us.  Anything could change as we learn more about our universe.  But...  I find it doubtful that we'll ever see the Starship Enterprise jumping from stellar system to stellar system, from galaxy to galaxy.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #57 on: 09/01/2011 00:40:35 »
Perhaps the 1952 thing was all a political ploy.

Then, a week later, it happened all over again -- more UFOs on the radar screen, more jets scrambled over Washington. Across America, the story of jets chasing UFOs over the White House knocked the Korean War and the presidential campaign off the front pages of newspapers.
Quote
As rumors spread, President Truman demanded to know what was flying over his house. Soon the federal government was fighting the UFOs with the most powerful weapons in the Washington arsenal -- bureaucracy, obfuscation and gobbledygook.

That seemed to work. The UFOs never returned.
Quote
When newspapers stopped writing about the UFOs, people stopped reporting UFOs. "Reports dropped from 50 per day to 10 a day within a week," Ruppelt noted.

Nothing like a good juicy story to hide the "real" news.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
The 1952 Incident
« Reply #58 on: 09/01/2011 12:36:52 »
If this was a military stunt, a hoaxing to the nation, what where they trying subdue in these actions? It cannot be for hype, because that does not make sense. If it were true, then its almost like they were trying to get the nation ready for something, and then dissipate it quickly to perhaps present how irrational such an idea may seem at first glance.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The 1952 Incident
« Reply #58 on: 09/01/2011 12:36:52 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums