Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:30AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the the-truth-is-out-there dept.

Although many U.S. presidential candidates are discussing "aliens," the Daily Mail has a story about a candidate talking about aliens from potentially much farther away. According to the Daily Mail, Hillary Clinton has made a campaign promise to 'get to the bottom' of Area 51 if she should be elected President of the United States of America. Specifically, Clinton said that she would reveal the UFO truth:

"one way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51."

"I think we may have been [visited already]. We don't know for sure."

The Daily Mail story is based on the report of an interview with the candidate published in the Conway Daily Sun newspaper of Conway, New Hampshire.

Do the contributors here think that extraterrestrials are a promising and important campaign topic? Or is there skepticism?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:40AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:40AM (#287568) Journal

    When Will Potential 2016 Candidates Discuss the ‘Extraterrestrial Issue’? [nymag.com]

    Former Obama aide and well-known X-Files obsessive John Podesta tweeted this month that his "biggest failure of 2014" was "Once again not securing the #disclosure of the UFO files."

    Many assume that Podesta will soon sign up for the still-hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, which means that the UFO lobby might just endorse Clinton for a second time if decides to run.

    Stephen Bassett, head of the Paradigm Research Group (which runs a blog about presidential UFO news and hosted an off-brand hearing for ex-members of Congress on government transparency in matters extraterrestrial), told the Huffington Post in 2007 that Hillary Clinton "knows this issue is not trivial." Nearly eight years later, Bassett is still trying to access any government documents on UFOs, and still hoping that Clinton will reach out to constituents like him.

    Outgoing Obama Advisor John Podesta Has UFO Regrets [huffingtonpost.com]

    John Podesta: Pulling Back the Curtain on UFOs [huffingtonpost.com]

    CIA Cover-up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry' [livescience.com]

    [Former Arizona Governor Fife] Symington: I saw a UFO in the Arizona sky [cnn.com]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:54AM (#287571)

    Remember the candidate who promised to get to the bottom of 9/11, repeal the Patriot Act, etc, etc. Sure I remember, but do you? Didn't think so.

    • (Score: 1) by o_o on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:44PM

      by o_o (1544) on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:44PM (#287667)

      the candidate who promised to get to the bottom of 9/11, repeal the Patriot Act, etc,

      I should add that some time ago on some other elections she also pledged to "find out what the hell is happening in LOST"

      But this may work for the UFO crowd's benefit: Hillary Clinton seeking their vote, that may be the wake up call they so desperately are in need of.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:04PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:04PM (#287572) Homepage Journal

    If Clinton can find enough people out in La-La Land, she could still win the election. People who are so preoccupied with their own obsessions, they have no idea what a failure she has been in every endeavor she has ever been involved in.

    Who remembers that she was fired from the Watergate investigation, with cause?

    --
    The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:08PM (#287573)

      People who are so preoccupied with their own obsessions

      Nuh-uh. Linux really is the best, because fuck you, that's why!

      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:11PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:11PM (#287574) Homepage Journal

        Uhhh, if Clinton comes out in support of any Unix-like, I will become very, very, very afraid. I will most definitely begin questioning my grasp of reality.

        --
        The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:32PM

          by ilPapa (2366) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:32PM (#287582) Journal

          Ted Cruz uses a Windows Phone.

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:20PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:20PM (#287784) Journal

          Instead of Red Hat linux, she'd use Blue Dress linux.... AND THEN BEAT THE HELL OUT OF IT!!! :)

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:01PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:01PM (#287590) Journal

      Trump seems to be doing pretty well himself.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:14PM (#287597)

        Trump is probably an alien from Planet La-La

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:29PM (#287658)

      People who are so preoccupied with their own obsessions, they have no idea what a failure she has been in every endeavor she has ever been involved in.

      It is so weird when you talk about yourself in the third person.

      Who remembers that she was fired from the Watergate investigation, with cause?

      That depends. Is it possible to 'remember' a lie? [snopes.com]

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:29PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:29PM (#287722) Homepage Journal

        You quote your sources, I'll take this source as more reliable.

        http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation [jacksonville.com]

        --
        The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:22PM (#287747)

          That entire article is a non-story. It makes no conclusions at all. That you find it convincing is just odd. In character for a credulous boob though.

          Meanwhile the snopes article quotes the origin of the smear contradicting himself on this very topic:

          1998: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,"

          2008: "I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions."

          It even cites his own book published in 1995 where he says she remained on the watergate investigation right up until nixon resigned.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:44PM (#287765)

          I'm no fan of Clinton but your source is a sensationalist bit of lame journalism trying to sway public opinion.

          Title: Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?

          After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

          The article itself states that she was there to the impeachment.

          But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

          Fact check indeed...
          I have no problem with accusing Clinton of unethical behavior, but you should work a little harder on your critical thinking and not accept "facts" as given by obviously biased sources. If it makes you feel any better, I have the same criticisms for most anything that comes from msnbc and other liberally biased articles.

          Redflags from your link besides what I listed already: "Is this true?" Asking a question in a news piece, bad journalism. Every "fact" is hearsay from Zeifman, with the most critical quote at the top coming from "On his now-shuttered website...." However I have seen worse bits of opinion pushing.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:58PM

          You quote your sources, I'll take this source as more reliable.

          " rel="url2html-5510">http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

          You should. Well, you should at least read the whole article. From the above link:

          Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. [emphasis added]

          Whereas the Snopes article [snopes.com] quotes Zeifman (with attribution):

          And again in 1998, Zeifman was quoted in a Scripps Howard News Service article [cloudfront.net] as unambiguously confirming that not only did he not "fire" Hillary, but that it was not even within his power to do so:
          Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 ... does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said. [emphasis added]

          What's more,

          Zeifman made no bones about having an ax to grind with Hillary Clinton (putting out the anti-Clinton paperback Hillary's Pursuit of Power in 2006), and as its blade grew sharper over the years, he quite obviously shifted his recollections of events from the 1973-74 timeframe to conform to his current point of view rather than the other way around.

          The Jacksonville.com link you provide also states that

          In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.

          However,

          Back in April 2008, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign site responded to Zeifman's claims by asserting:

          In a column circulating on the internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s.

          This is false. Hillary was not fired.

          This is confirmed here [truthorfiction.com], the very site that jacksonville.com claims can't verify the 2008 Clinton campaign's response. Sigh.

          Now, I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. At the same time, I'm even less of a fan of mendacity [youtube.com]. There are plenty of unflattering true things that can be said about Hillary Clinton without relying on both unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.

          By the way, it took me less than five minutes to determine the truth/falsity of these claims. You, apparently can't even spare that before spewing falsehoods. That smacks of laziness and intellectual dishonesty.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:40PM

          Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

          You continue to post easily refutable and wholly anti-democratic (small d) rants and then seem completely unable (or unwilling) to logically (or factually) support your positions.

          So. Who signs your paycheck? The DNC? George Soros?

          Or am I giving you way too much credit? Please advise.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:52PM (#287872)

            Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

            No way, not even Runaway could make the American right seem to be a bunch of complete morons! I don't thing he is a false flag, I just think he is the real thing.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday January 11 2016, @12:43AM

              Hey Runaway. I'm beginning to think that you're an (American) left-wing (which means center-right everywhere else) plant, attempting some sort of false-flag to make the right seem like a bunch of complete morons.

              No way, not even Runaway could make the American right seem to be a bunch of complete morons! I don't thing he is a false flag, I just think he is the real thing.

              tl;dr: There are both morons and intelligent/thoughtful persons of every stripe.

              An interesting (if divisive and short-sighted) point. However, I'd point out that The Mighty Buzzard [soylentnews.org] and Frojack [soylentnews.org] among others here also espouse right-wing ideas, and while I may disagree with some of those ideas, they actually attempt to back up their positions with logic and/or fact.

              That's the essence of free, honest discourse IMHO.

              Runaway1956, on the other hand, generally doesn't back up his claims with anything approaching logic or evidence.

              I suggested that Runaway might be a (American) left-wing plant as an alternative to the idea that he is, in fact, that dumb -- essentially giving him the benefit of the doubt.

              What is more, our beliefs are usually much more nuanced than left/right or Libertarian/Collectivist. Our views are guided by our life experiences and the information we both take to heart and reject. This blurs the lines pretty significantly.

              I believe that all ideas, from the coherent to the dotty should be espoused, examined and debated, creating what William O. Douglas called the Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org].

              As an example, I am (WRT social issues) strongly libertarian and believe that we should have the right to think and speak without restriction. I also believe that we should be able to act without restriction, unless those actions impinge on the rights of others [quoteinvestigator.com].

              At the same time, I also believe that, as a society, we have an obligation to assist those who are less fortunate and, that government is an appropriate mechanism for doing so. E Pluribus Unum [wikipedia.org] has strong meaning for me and I believe that we are stronger together as a society than we are as individuals.

              This isn't cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org], rather it's the result of my life experiences. I try hard (and usually succeed) not to negatively judge those with whom I disagree, nor do I attempt to silence them. I'd much prefer to find areas of agreement (of which there are many on all sides, IMHO), while engaging (without rancor) others in healthy debate the ideas over which we disagree.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @02:16AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @02:16AM (#287908)

                It is weird how you made your conspiracy theory critique of runaway all about you.

  • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:36PM

    by Bobs (1462) on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:36PM (#287583)

    She is responding to Trump's support from the UFO contingent:

    UFO follows Trump helicopter - https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=70392 [alien-ufos.com]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:19PM (#287600)

    "the Daily Mail has a story"
    stopped reading right there.

    fuck you, and fuck the contirbutor, requerdanos.

    And fuck the guy who published it: takyon: https://soylentnews.org/~takyon/ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:48PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:48PM (#287616) Journal

      Hi! Thanks for your feedback. :)

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 10 2016, @03:04PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @03:04PM (#287621) Journal

        Articles submitted by this AC: 0.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:11PM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:11PM (#287828) Journal

        Dude its the Daily Mail. If you are gonna hit the rag mags? At least hit Weekly World News, then we can find out the latest on bat boy [weeklyworldnews.com].

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:25PM (#287657)

      Wow, big brave AC comes in with plenty of profanity to shower hate on anyone who would dare make light mockery of a Democrat. 50 years ago, they would have just sent the union thugs over to rough you up.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:52PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:52PM (#287669) Journal

        make light mockery

        To be honest, while the subject does seem a little silly, I would actually love for all of the UFO information to be released.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:37PM (#287701)

          Yeah. Hillary gets dinged all the time for not being genuine. It isn't a stretch to think she's as curious as anyone else about UFOs. Seems like a genuine, if minor, curiosity on her part.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:39PM

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:39PM (#288727) Journal

          "Rednecks like shiny things. Glitter Finish on our bass boats, beer cans, UFO's we like shiny things. When was the last time you saw a big rich person's boat with a glitter finish? In fact if you think of it most of the UFO sightings take place on a Bass Boat by a guy with a beer in one hand." - Jeff Foxworthy Seriously Funny, but he may have a point.

          --
          Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:13PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:13PM (#287682) Journal

      Cool story, bruh.

      based on the report of an interview with the candidate published in the Conway Daily Sun newspaper of Conway, New Hampshire.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:50PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:50PM (#287605)

    There's a catch 22 at work here, if Area 51 doesn't have anything interesting to tell - then the truth will be told. However, if there is anything juicy there like: an early alien encounter resulted in the development of the transistor, or nuclear energy, and we've got a captured ship and are still learning new things from it... then a more elaborate "nothing to see, move along." story will be concocted and told.

    When Obama the candidate promised to close Guantanamo, he didn't have access to all the information. Even though Clinton the first lady may have had access, she probably didn't press the point, now Clinton the candidate is either making a hollow promise, or one that will never result in anything interesting being released.

    Or, altogether more likely, the Daily Mail is inventing a story from hearsay or less.

    --
    John Galt is a selfish crybaby [huffpost.com].
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:13PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:13PM (#287713)

      Or, considering the period, it's far more likely that that's where the US government stored the records (or possibly, literally burred the skeletons) of all the other Tuskegee-like experimentations with racially targeted viral or chemical mass-sterilization.

      --
      compiling...
    • (Score: 1) by tekk on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:36PM

      by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:36PM (#287728)
      The other problem is that lets say that Area 51 doesn't have anything interesting. Are the kind of people who want this investigation really going to take "Yeah, it really is just a base where the air force tries out experimental aircraft." as an answer?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:57PM (#287736)

        It does have something interesting.

        It is top secret spy craft stuff. Thats it. Nothing more. The large runways give it away what they are doing there. They are running a 24/7 flyover missions from there. The reason they do not want people looking at the runways? Not because they have much to hide. All of the people who know about what goes on there knows. The 'top secret' is to keep people from logging flight times and aircraft type. Much like trainspotting.

        They also run the latest prototypes out of there as they do not want people looking at it, yet. You can tell a lot about things by observing them. They know they have built whole agencies upon the idea of observation and gathering intel.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:34PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:34PM (#287756)

        >Are the kind of people who want this investigation really going to take "Yeah, it really is just a base where the air force tries out experimental aircraft." as an answer?

        They haven't so far...

        --
        John Galt is a selfish crybaby [huffpost.com].
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:49PM (#287617)

    Clinton was asked about strong encryption in the last debate, and her reply was that Silicon Valley should wave a magic wand and come up with a technology that would allow the police to look at everything while also protecting privacy. Now I get it. She thinks Silicon Valley gets technology from aliens.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Sunday January 10 2016, @04:40PM

    by ledow (5567) on Sunday January 10 2016, @04:40PM (#287647) Homepage

    Daily Mail.

    Therefore, it's all bollocks.

    Welcome to the UK.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:42PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:42PM (#287702) Journal
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by ledow on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:45PM

        by ledow (5567) on Sunday January 10 2016, @08:45PM (#287766) Homepage

        Doesn't matter.

        The Daily Mail quote it, it's bollocks.
        The Daily Mail cite it, it's made up.
        The Daily Mail publish it, it's fabricated junk.

        The Daily Mail is tabloid trash, and I can't see anyone else of reliance publishing it.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by takyon on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:00PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:00PM (#287816) Journal

          The Daily Mail quote it, it's bollocks.
          The Daily Mail cite it, it's made up.
          The Daily Mail publish it, it's fabricated junk.

          Three untrue statements. Your extremism has been noted.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:58PM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:58PM (#287873) Journal

            The Daily Mail quote it, it's bollocks.
                    The Daily Mail cite it, it's made up.
                    The Daily Mail publish it, it's fabricated junk.

            Three untrue statements. Your extremism has been noted.

            Just one, actually. The second to the last. And Oh, as Barry said (Goldwater), extremism in the defense of journalism is no vice!

            --
            Die Republikkkanische Partei isst die weissvolken partei.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @11:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @11:42AM (#288080)

          Ah, so if I want you to not believe a story, all I have to do is to send it to the daily mail? :-)

      • (Score: 2) by fleg on Monday January 11 2016, @04:13AM

        by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 11 2016, @04:13AM (#287968)

        sure, but if you have a source other than the daily mail, then dont even mention the daily mail.
        it doesnt do anything but diminsh the story.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 11 2016, @07:28AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday January 11 2016, @07:28AM (#288020) Journal

          The Daily Mail is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's main journalistic feature is boobs. Some have referred to the Weekly World News, but they are now sadly defunct and Batboy is no longer among us (thought I hear that Sean Penn just had a meeting with the Werewolf Boy!) No one has contributed so much to the decline in journalism as Murdock. He makes Hearst look like an amateur. He makes Sun Young Moon's Washington Times look like a real paper! And that is not easy to do! So, while I agree with the response that says "if you don't like what gets posted, submit something better", there are standards beneath which we should not go. Daily Mail is one of those. I might also add "Infowars", Drudge, and Brietbart. Not because they are right wing, but because they are crazy. But then, really, what is the difference?

          --
          Die Republikkkanische Partei isst die weissvolken partei.
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:10PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:10PM (#288767) Journal

            This Daily Mail article is entirely factual.
            This Daily Mail article is entirely factual.
            This Daily Mail article is entirely factual.

            So what's the problem? Don't want to give them ad revenue? Use an adblocker. Then you'll be getting the factual information while driving up their costs slightly.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @12:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @12:02AM (#287876)

    Has anyone here seen a UFO? and I don't mean just an object that seems to be flying or soaring across the sky that you couldn't identify. I mean an impressive object that hovers, moves, stops, goes, moves down, stops, hovers, then moves up and away and changes courses abruptly with impressive characteristics, speed, and acceleration, and made no noise whatsoever that you couldn't think of a man made craft that can do such a thing that looks like such an object?

    I have. Twice. The first time I was with a friend and we both saw the same thing. It was a disk with red lights around it and the red lights spun around. The disk hovered in one place for a while then moved in circles across the sky at very high velocity making no noise whatsoever. It went around and around, was quite a distance and so it was traveling very fast. In the matter of seconds it would be from one end of the sky to another and hovered back around. It stopped at will, continued at will, changed courses and directions abruptly at will, zigzagged at will, etc... My friend and I both saw the same thing.

    The second time I was with a relative. This egg large shaped object was hovering over our house, it wasn't very high at all and was much larger than our house. It was a pale gray, almost the color of the sky, but pulsated to a glowing yellow and back. Didn't make a sound. We both saw the same thing. Not long after like five or so helicopters started chasing it and as they approached it it started moving up to get away from them then stopped and hovered again. As the helicopters begin to recover their distance towards it it moved up again. It did that for a while before just suddenly zooming away in a fraction of a second. Later on there were reports all over the local news that many others were seeing the same thing. I think the news tried to possibly discard it as some type of balloon but ... no.

    Unless me and others were experiencing mass hallucinations I know what I saw. Those two times were the only times in my entire life I've ever seen anything so impressive. I guess such an observation is a once in a lifetime event if you're lucky but I can't disregard what I saw. Even though I tend to be very skeptical of UFO sightings and whatnot if it weren't for these two sightings that I've encountered before I would be a lot more skeptical. Some things I just can't explain.

    Both encounters occurred in the nineties.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:48AM (#287896)

      Its strange that as camera have improved in quality and become more prevalent (most people carry a decent one in their pockets/handbags these days), that we still don't have any good videos of UFOs. Why would that be?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:24AM (#288007)

        Its strange that as camera have improved in quality and become more prevalent...that we still don't have any good videos of UFOs. Why would that be?

        If there are "visitors" and they want to stay semi-hidden, they may stay at the edge of detection and photography. More cameras just means they have to be more careful not turn on the funny glowy lights as often to run the abduction equipment, etc.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @11:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @11:47AM (#288082)

        Maybe the UFOs are sending VEIL signals [wikipedia.org] to disable digital cameras? :-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:19AM (#288006)

      I know two people personally who saw something really strange and were freaked out by it. Separate events. I won't speculate, for I wasn't there.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @06:28AM (#288010)

      oh my god, how could I have been so blind. if Anonymous Coward talks about it on the internet, it's obviously true.
      even if you were telling the truth, what could possibly make someone believe you? an abundance of details is not a proof, and neither is a bigger amount of weird in your story.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @08:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @08:56AM (#288045)

        I have seen the more boring variety (object hovering in the distance) on a couple occasions.

        I think the first one turned out to be a marker light that I mis-judged the distance of (because it was so dim). (Did not move with the stars over hours.)

        I think the ball(s) of multi-coloured lights I see on cold nights is just extreme star twinkling. (But have not carefully tracked movement over hours to confirm that)

    • (Score: 1) by radu on Monday January 11 2016, @08:55AM

      by radu (1919) on Monday January 11 2016, @08:55AM (#288044)

      ... and was much larger than ...

      ... to a glowing yellow ...

      That was the Vogons - see, I identified it right away, not an UFO.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:53PM (#288108)

      Thank you for sharing your experiences. I too have seen similar things, but with different colored lights and such. Also had black helicopters with search beams come snooping around the edge of the trees right where the crafts had passed over as well as military jets show up in the same flight path but higher. My biggest sightings were towards the end of 1994 with some smaller sightings many years before and some since.

      In the biggest sighting, which was at night while I was standing outside watching meteor showers, there were 3 craft in this particular grouping which all came from different directions at very high speed then "locked" together into a tight formation then flew in one direction (directly towards Mt. Rainier) very slowly, leisurely almost as if sight-seeing. One of the craft, which formed the front-west corner of the perfect backwards-triangular formation, flew very slowly directly over me, perhaps 50 feet high. It was absolutely silent until it's center got directly over me then I felt a powerful deep thrumming vibration which was so strong that I could practically hear it. Then it quickly faded away as it continued on its way. Each of the front two craft had three large rectangular panels that would change colors (mostly white and red from what I recall), but the rear centered craft had a pattern of square/rectangular panels facing directly down with a central square panel parallel to the ground and the other panels connecting to it angling upwards at an angle kind of like the bottom of a very simple disco ball.

      I have no idea who/what was piloting them, I only know that I witnessed the use of technology that no Nation or Company claimed to have, both back then and now. I had no camera available back then when it happened but god I wish I did.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @01:56PM (#288111)

        My mistake; it was the Front-East corner craft, not the Front-West one. The Front-West one was flying over the edge of the tree-line whereas the Front-East one was flying over the row of houses where I was standing.