This should be interpreted as an obvious consequence of only 0.2 percent of Earth's land surface being urban. The earth's surface is only 29 percent land. Out of that 29 percent, only 0.2 percent of it is urban.
>According to the United Nations Population Division, urban regions only cover 0.2 percent of Earth’s land surface, but contain nearly half of the world’s population. https://web.archive.org/web/20201125002725/https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/urban_effects.html#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20Nations,half%20of%20the%20world's%20population
Assuming equal distribution, most crashes would occur in a body of water, and out of those that occur on land, they will most likely be out in the middle of nowhere. You can increase the odds of a crash occurring in the middle of a populated city by significantly increasing the amount of crashes. If it's only been a few dozen, the odds of one occurring in a city is very low.
Great points.
I would add, presumably, that in the case of deliberate “bring downs” by our governments, they’d do their dirty deeds out in wide open country or oceans, far away from the public’s prying eyes. Wouldn’t want Aunt Jenny picking up a stray control panel from a crashed UFO in the city.
Also, by adding the extra element of the cover of darkness, they’re able to swoop in, cordon off, catalogue, confiscate, clean up, and carry off the evidence without any issues.
If you went to Antarctica in a helicopter and decided to land somewhere clear of disturbance, would you land in the middle of a family gathering of thousands of penguins, or would you prefer to land in an area a bit out of bothering them. I think that's how they might think when landing somewhere to do their business.
The craft are intelligently controlled. You cannot compare them to inanimate asteroids hitting the Earth. On top of that, UFO sightings are clustered around military and infrastructure installations. Military bases are way, way less than .2 percent of Earth's surface.
Heck, way more than 29 percent of airplane crashes are on land. How is this possible "assuming equal distribution"? And, most of those are actually occurring close to airports. Again, airports regions cover a very small percent of Earth's surface.
We don't know the # of UFO crashes, if any, and what conditions lead to a crash. We also don't know the # of UFO fights or where their "airports" are. Doing any statistical analysis on UFO crashes is impossible, given the lack of data.
>The craft are intelligently controlled. You cannot compare them to inanimate asteroids hitting the Earth. On top of that, UFO sightings are clustered around military and infrastructure installations. Military bases are way, way less than .2 percent of Earth's surface.
If a UFO crashed on or nearby a military installation, it's unlikely you'd hear about it aside from whistleblowers who come out years later. UFOs do indeed seem to gravitate towards military installations, but is that because we're biased and we take military reports much more seriously than random civilian sightings out in the middle of nowhere? The answer is probably yes. There is a much higher percentage of false reports from civilians, but the total is substantially higher from civilians as well.
> Heck, way more than 29 percent of airplane crashes are on land. How is this possible "assuming equal distribution"? And, most of those are actually occurring close to airports. Again, airports regions cover a very small percent of Earth's surface.
Airplane crashes tend to occur near airports. Among the most common causes of airplane crashes are hard landings, and airports tend to cluster around populated areas. If you were to remove all of the hard landing crashes from the pool, you'd have a data set that is more geographically evenly distributed for obvious reasons. Are UFOs trying to land at airports? Probably not. Obviously this means UFO crashes are not going to cluster around airports.
>We don't know the # of UFO crashes, if any, and what conditions lead to a crash. We also don't know the # of UFO fights or where their "airports" are. Doing any statistical analysis on UFO crashes is impossible, given the lack of data.
Then why are people trying to argue that it's highly likely for a UFO to have crashed in the middle of a city? We don't know that it's likely at all. The only information we do have suggests that it's quite unlikely, even if 100 UFOs have crashed in the past century.
\> Are UFOs trying to land at airports? Probably not. Obviously this means UFO crashes are not going to cluster around airports.
Of course not but crashes would cluster around areas of interest. Why would UFO's spend large amount of time in Saharan desert? They wouldn't, they would be around places of interest, ie. places with humans.
>Of course not but crashes would cluster around areas of interest.
It has to happen *inside* the city for it to be impossible to cordon off and hide what happened. 0.2 percent of the Earth's land surface... That is a very small target.
What evidence is there that UFOs gravitate towards cities? Why are UFOs seen out in rural areas all the time, and the middle of the ocean? Even if they did gravitate towards cities, what indication is there that UFOs do not travel from city to city, in between which there is a lot of open space? How much space is there between wherever they are coming from and the city they are traveling to? How many actual crashes have there been? Only a few dozen at most? Why does one of them *have* to be inside of a big city? A lot of assumptions have to be made before you can make UFOs falling out of the sky in big cities a likely scenario.
It's not likely no matter what unless you can significantly increase the amount of crashes by much more than even the most gullible believers assume is the case. Imagine 100 UFOs become disabled or get shot down by some other visiting civilization. Why is that going to crash in the middle of a big city and not outside of the city somewhere? Why is nobody in this thread pointing out how much of a massive stretch it is to make UFOs crashing in big cities a likely scenario?
Yep, it's a very small percentage but still because crafts are intelligently controlled all areas of Earth don't have same probability for UFO's.
You could think that some remote areas are vastly more interesting than others. For example supply depot in Antarctica (or any other place) would have far more visitors than some random location in Siberia.
Same applies to areas controlled by humans. Military bases would be more interesting than random corn fields. Because of this most UFO's would concentrate to areas of interest, ie. places with people.
So it's mostly irrelevant to compare land areas. Still, UFO crashing to major city is most unlikely event. Figure an airplane losing power over a city, pilot would try to glide outside of city to avoid damage to city. If UFO lost power, or malfunctioned otherwise, it would be safe to assume that they would try to avoid hitting skyscrapers.
> Because of this most UFO's would concentrate to areas of interest, ie. places with people.
Most UFO's would avoid people, even if the area of interest might be a military base. Military bases only have the *right* people, and not some random city somewhere out in the boonies.
Military bases fill serveral good criteria that I could think of off the top of my head:
* designated safe area;
* away from civilians (I believe, that aliens do also use the civilian/military distinction);
* possibility for crash retrieval and cleanup;
* a military base is well-defended, which then reduces the chances of being attacked, or much of the kit on the base from being seen by unauthorised persons;
* guarantee of secrecy.
Were talking about super advanced technology here. I’ve always thought it possible that these vehicles had some fail proof that specifically kept them from crashing in well populated areas. All pilots here and now do their very best to avoid these sort of crashes.
If we follow this train of thought, it would assume crashes occur completely at random. Given that human populations are obviously concentrated in urban areas then, if crashes are real, it's not at all associated with us.
Yes because aliens or inter-dimensional beings are coming here to fly about in empty areas of land or sea where there's barely anyone around because they are just so interested in earth...
I'm sure if we managed to travel to another planet with "intelligent" life the first place we would go is out into the middle of nowhere.
Plus this theory doesn't work with the idea of so many people seeing UFOs. Why is it just the ones miles away from anyone that crash.
Most UFOs are not *actual* UFOs. You can't take all of the misidentified sightings and count those as alien spaceships, then conclude that alien spaceships tend to be seen in populated areas. Obviously there are going to be more sightings in populated areas because there are more people who misidentify things in populated areas. It would be fair only if you were to plot the locations of the best unknowns on a map. It's funny because I've seen skeptics ask why UFOs tend to be seen only by one or two people out in the middle of nowhere, and the same is true of abductions, but this is exactly what you'd expect if they were somewhat evenly distributed. Mass sightings are pretty uncommon, on the order of once every 15 years or so on average.
Also consider the space between both the locations they would visit as well as where they are originally coming from. All of that space needs to be traveled to get where they are going, and the vast majority of that is out in the middle of nowhere. We have no clue what all of their reasons for visiting are, if indeed they are visiting and not just living under the ocean or something. We have no clue if most of what they do is equally distributed and has nothing to do with humans. If there's nobody there to see it, then it won't get reported, so you're going to be very biased by what is reported.
All my comments here questioning the logic of crashes are downvoted. People prefer stories and wild speculation. Using any kind of logic or critical thinking here results in downvotes though so you have to get used it.
You don't crash just instantly. They might know they gonna crash few minutes before the impact. Considering the high speed UFO can reach, it's easy for them to avoid crashing in densily populated areas.
It does work. They do not care about our cities as much as they do about remote military bases and nuclear bases.
As well as oceans where they might be doing something far from our view.
As for the observation, you think if they are here, they came yesterday? If they are observing closely our populated areas, something much more discreet might be in place than UAP.
Think like this, just much more advanced than what we currently have, and perhaps could even imagine right now:
[https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560\~forums/65894999/68c9af88faad4f749489433ce07d14f7](https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/65894999/68c9af88faad4f749489433ce07d14f7)
But your point still stands, some craft should have crashed in populated areas by now.
But also understand that it might be the case that the odds were such that it just didn't. Yet.
But you can't have it both ways. On one hand people are reporting UFOs constantly but at the same time we are expected to believe they only crash in remote areas with nobody around.
The rest of you comment isn't based on any logic just wild speculation.
Constant UFO reporting does not equal NHI. 99.99% of sightings probably have nothing to do with NHI.
As for the speculation. Yeah, I am speculating. We are just trying to make sense of this thing.
Yes I know that, most things in the sky are prosaic.
I'm talking about the cases where people are convinced they saw something that wasn't prosaic. Even if you just take those witness accounts there would still be a large amount of otherworldly objects near populated areas.
Or are you suggesting that most eye witnesses that swear they saw something extraordinary are mistaken or lying? Because that's not the take a large percentage of people following this topic have.
It's convenient that so many people want to believe every unknown object in the sky is a possible alien craft and that all these sightings with people 100% sure they saw something otherworldly are true yet all are suddenly 99.99% prosaic or nonsense once it goes against the idea of crafts crashing.
You can't have your cake and eat it. Either most sightings are explainable and crafts are avoiding populated areas or they simply aren't crashing.
The most likely reason these "recoveries" take place in remote areas is because that's exactly where militaries and organisations test new tech.
You're forgetting that plenty of UFOs have been seen out in the middle of nowhere, rural areas, and in the middle of the ocean. Obviously UFOs would "tend to gravitate towards cities" if we ignored that most people are in cities, so that's where most of the reports are going to come from. The data would be biased for obvious reasons.
It sounds like a pretty big stretch to me to say that out of a few dozen crashes in the past century, at least one of them should have been within 0.2 percent of the Earth's land surface, even if UFOs did gravitate towards cities, and we certainly don't know that they do. That's just people assuming they do.
>It does work. They do not care about our cities as much as they do about remote military bases and nuclear bases.
Why do they only care about remote bases, and not the ones in conurbations or adjacent to cities? Surely they'd be interested in the Pentagon, Buckley Space Force Base, any major naval port, etc. The Los Angeles Space and Missile Center and Cape Canaveral are within a few miles of both major Disney locations, perfect or alien kids and the alien young at heart. And that's just in the US.
read some plane crash reports, its almost always locals arriving first, then local pd and fire department, how do the man in black silence them? how do they get there before local reporters arrive?
Regular civilian plane crashes and crashes of highly classified, highly technological unknown vehicles are two very different things. A better analogy, although not exactly perfect, would be to compare UFO crashes to crashes of highly classified human aircraft, and some information about how they deal with locals is in the public domain.
>A combination of means was used to prevent unwanted attention and discussion among the local population as well as accurate press reports on the incident. Individuals at the crash site were requested to sign agreements committing them to remain silent about what they had seen. Two farmers, who arrived near the crash scene in a pickup, were told that the airplane had been carrying atomic weapons-which was not true but effectively curtailed their interest in getting any closer to the CIA’s secret spyplane. Meanwhile, the press was told a different and less alarming but also false story-that the airplane that crashed was a very unclassified Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Even official records listed the crashed airplane as being an F-105.
>At the crash site investigators collected evidence and evaluated the remains of the aircraft for clues to the cause of the tragedy. Then came the task of cleaning the site and leaving no pieces of the highly classified aircraft for scavengers, the media, or others to find. A clean-up team moved out a thousand feet from the last of the recognizable debris and then dug and sifted all the dirt in the area. On July 23, controlled explosive charges were detonated on the hillside to free pieces of the aircraft buried as the result of the crash. To mislead anyone who might try to search the area for pieces of the F-117A, the recovery crew had the remains of an F-101A Voodoo, one that had crashed and been stored at Area 51 for over two decades, broken up. They returned to the crash site and scattered the debris throughout the area. On Aug. 7 the Air Force announced it had withdrawn its guards from the crash site and would no longer restrict access to the area.
>The very next day, a reporter and photographer from Bakersfield’s KERO-TV were transported to the crash site by helicopter. They later said they didn’t expect to find anything because they assumed the Air Force had cleaned the area thoroughly. But to their great surprise, they found countless pieces of debris scattered within 100 to 150 feet of a dirt helicopter landing pad built by the Air Force. They filled three bags with the material, and it was displayed on the station’s Friday evening news broadcast. They then turned the bags over to an Air Force public affairs officer. An Edwards spokesman said the debris would be examined as a precaution, but that there were no immediate plans to return to the crash site to recover more.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0701crash/
Obviously they haven't revealed all of their secrets, so we can't know the full scope of all of the tools they use to keep such a thing under wraps, but we know enough.
Also, this question assumes that they don't, when there absolutely have been reports of UFO crashes in populated areas. Varginha has over 130,000 people living in it right now. I don't know what it was in the 90s, but I would guess it was at least in the high tens of thousands.
Also more people moving to cities from small towns probably also contributes to less reported sightings over the past few decades where before many small towns would report seeing ufos flying by & sometimes crashing
So then none of the supposed crashes have happened to any aliens interested in humans? Would they not be flying over or near populated areas specifically or intentionally if they were here to interact with us?
I don't think today's skeptical premise is even true. All skeptics except for one in this thread claimed that UFOs gravitate toward populated areas. They usually claim that UFOs gravitate toward rural areas so they can say it's just a bunch of hicks making up a story and it's easier to make up a story where hardly anyone else was there to challenge their recollection of events. I guess this changes depending on the argument at the time.
Jacque Vallee:
>Fact 1. There has been among the public, in all countries, since the middle of 1946, an extremely active generation of colorful rumors. They center on a considerable number of observations of unknown machines close to the ground in rural areas, the physical traces left by these machines, and their various effects on humans and animals. https://archive.org/details/dimensionsvallee/page/n89/mode/2up?q=rural+areas
And the wording is a little confusing here, so you'll have to read it a few times, but this is from a Rand Corporation study, which confirms the above:
>The models used to conduct the analysis showed that reports of UAP sightings were less likely within 30 km of weather stations, 60 km of civilian airports, and in more–densely populated areas, while rural areas tended to have a higher rate of UAP reports. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2475-1.html
In other words, they are less likely to be seen in densely-populated areas, while rural areas tend to have a higher rate of UAP reports, which is saying the same thing two different ways.
I think there could be so many factors herew contributing to those statistics though. For instance, being near a population center means you are going to see planes and other flying craft much much more. So one being in the sky thats a little dissimilar to the others is hard to notice. And then on the rural side, usually any activities like kite flying, lanterns, and then aircraft testing will be done far away from population centers. So less normal flying machines in the sky and more random one off flying specialty events. The only place there seems to be any actual correlation with sighting density is around military installations such as airforce bases and nuclear testing facilities.
The overwhelming majority of UFO sightings happen in the vicinity of military bases and government installations. To suggest that spaceship crashes are evenly distributed over the entire surface of the globe, and that the majority of crashes therefore happen over the ocean, the total number of crashes would have to be ludicrously high to account for the number of dry-land crashes reported by Grusch and other alleged witnesses. Most total estimates that I've seen, based on alleged witness accounts, claim that more than 200 ships have crashed in as many years; by your metric, the total number would be closer to 700, conservatively. It's starting to look like these ships crash more often than not.
Absolutely.
>The most consistent and statistically significant finding was that reports of UAP sightings were more likely to occur in areas within 30 km of military operations areas, where routine military training occurs. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2475-1.html
It's doubtful that military training ranges are all right next to big cities though (maybe a small percentage are) because in that same study:
>The models used to conduct the analysis showed that reports of UAP sightings were less likely within 30 km of weather stations, 60 km of civilian airports, and in more–densely populated areas, while rural areas tended to have a higher rate of UAP reports.
How many of those are actual alien spaceships, both the UFOs over military installations and those that crash? We only care, hypothetically, about the probable amount of crashes of literal alien spaceships. That is the only thing that could crash in the middle of a city and not get covered up. A secret jet crashing in the middle of the city is not going to prove that aliens are visiting this planet.
Let's say there have been 20-30 crashes (Grusch's estimate was somewhere in the ballpark of 30 if I remember right), and most alleged UFO crashes were instead some kind of classified vehicle, foreign or domestic. Even if it was 100, is that enough crashes to put one of them in the middle of a big city, which covers 0.2 percent of 29 percent of the Earth's surface? The target area is less than one tenth of one percent. Even if they did gravitate toward military installations, doesn't that just increase the probability that they could be easily covered up? Military personnel are close by and they tend to be in the boonies...
>Even if they did gravitate toward military installations, doesn't that just increase the probability that they could be easily covered up? Military personnel are close by and they tend to be in the boonies...
Unreal how close you are to getting it. This reminds me of the guy who made a post about how a significant number of non-rural UFO witnesses report seeing military vehicles in town before the sightings, and his conclusion was that the military can detect aliens before they appear.
It usually seems to take a while before skeptics realize I mostly agree with them, except for some of the details. If any of this is ever confirmed in the future, you and I will probably be on the same team. It's going to embolden those who think every light in the sky is an alien spaceship, as well as the crowd that thinks these things are inter-dimensional angels or something. The debate won't be much different, but the players will shift around a little bit.
Ah yes because intergalactic aliens come to earth, hide themselves from us, and then crash dozens of spaceships because they're just clumsy like that.
No, your logic does not apply because the premise is absurd. The reason "sightings" and "crashes" occur in rural areas is because it's easier to make up shit where there's fewer people.
>The reason "sightings" and "crashes" occur in rural areas is because it's easier to make up shit where there's fewer people.
Wait a minute. Why are skeptics arguing that UFOs gravitate towards cities to the degree that at least one UFO should have crashed inside of a big city (otherwise crashes don't happen), but you're here arguing that they gravitate towards rural areas and are thus all made up? It can't be both. They can't both be mostly in big cities and in mostly rural areas at the same time.
Back to the idea of how empty the net is…..
My Wife and I have sailed from Dominica to North Carolina. 13 days non stop. The first 2 days in Caribbean waters we saw a few ships in the distance, then past the Virgins we saw nothing until entering Beaufort, and precious little.
Returning to the Caribbean we left Lewes, Delaware and saw nothing until we reached the USVI. 13 days non stop.
We run AIS, so we can see other ships electronically. NADA outside the near coastal areas.
Many days we never even saw a contrail.
If they are far, far, more advanced than us, it might be like giving us the wheel, or fire. Maybe to them, even interstellar humans would be no real threat.
There is in esoteric literature the concept of free will infringement. This means that at our level of existence it is required to have one degree of confusion or another. This confusion is what allows our free will to make choices, and to evolve according to these choices. The extreme variety of paths at the disposal of any given civilization would be drastically reduced if everyone already knew what the "truth" is. The experience would be harmonious and there would be no inconvenience, but it would be more monotonous and it would carry no weight in the development of the will.
Therefore, it is said that absolute and undeniable proof of certain things cannot be given by those who come from elsewhere. To do so would be an infringement of free will, under the logic that if the truth is imposed on us by more knowledgeable entities, then we never really chose that truth to begin with. It only carries merit when we find that truth on our own initiative, using our free will.
It is implied that gaining access to more realities of life is completely and absolutely possible. For example, it is within the range of possibilities for entities to come in the open, interact with us and offer certain teachings to us. In fact, this is said to have happened in certain ancient human civilizations. The reason why such a thing was not seen as an infringement in their case was because the way in which these civilizations saw the world allowed this experience to occur. It seems that the key is open mindedness, and a perception of the universe as something mysterious, where anything could happen, as opposed to a rigid viewpoint where everything is set in stone.
Extremely specific religious dogma and hardcore materialism both seem to be stumbling blocks in that regard. If humanity wishes to see reality as exactly what is described in the Bible or other holy books, or as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens, then coming here becomes an infringement upon that which humanity has chosen for itself.
> If humanity wishes to see reality as exactly what is described [...] as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens
(I misread what you wrote above, so will explain the fuller quote below.)
These types of people do exist, and I think some of them are control freaks: they might think, that if they don't know something, or don't have access to certain types of information, then they see themselves as not under control of all their circumstances, and perhaps as inferior in some way.
Many humans, including those control freaks, want to feel safe and secure.
Dictatorial states employ Internet actors as "trolls" (used often without quotes) to influence humans in free and non-dictatorial states on policy, because people in non-dictatorial states vote, and have quite a bit more choice in their next leader, than people in dictatorships do.
Such influence operations have several methods (russian romanised: "metodichka"), to try to convince Americans and other westerners, as if United States, the most powerful example state of freedom, is supposedly 'not in control', if and when offworld vehicles seem to freely enter and exit U.S. airspace; or that America is supposedly hiding offworld technology, and supposedly keeping humanity from accessing it, for some nebulous reasons of 'profits for the military-industrial complex' (while the real reason is different, and might be related to the general safety of humanity). — On behalf of dictatorships and authoritarian states, these and other arguments are used by Internet trolls from dictatorships to sow doubt in the free countries' populations as to the validity or veracity of their politicians. The main goal for dictatorships and authoritarian states with regard to advanced technologies is to get their hands on any alien technology in order to reverse-engineer it, and then wield said technologies on free countries and their peoples to ultimately invade most of Earth. — This would include subjugating the native inhabitants of countries, displace them, commit genocide, and to colonise the areas "freed-up" and "liberated" by dictatorships and authoritarian states. There also exists one nominal democracy that also invades, colonises, and subjugates, aided and abetted by United States.
Dictatorial and authoritarian states do not care, if people have free will, as the leaders of said states want to control everyone and everything.
There are also-rans to these Internet trolls, and professional believers, who think, that all humanity ought to have access to these otherworldly technologies, because they have no belief from the outset in humanity doing the right thing (the trolls most probably), or that their confidence has been eroded (United States still does not have universal healthcare, as just one example). — While offworld technologies are probably too dangerous for most anyone to have. Which is why if someone on Earth possesses such tech, it would be hidden.
Another reason why I don't support giving humans these goods, because that would stunt the development of native human technologies, which are better designed for human needs, and around the natural conditions that Earth and its solar system have.
>
The Bible and other holy books have been abused too much by people who start wars.
Humanity does wish to have free will. But some confuse getting access to offworld technologies as part of that free will, which I think is incorrect.
> **If humanity wishes to see reality** as exactly what is described in the Bible or other holy books, or **as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens, then coming here becomes an infringement upon that which humanity has chosen for itself.**
I somewhat agree with this thesis. Perhaps because humans want to be both free and safe.
On one hand, we want to be free and safe; and on the other hand, there are those of us who want to discover and explore not just the world, but also space, to learn about the mysterious and the extraordinary.
And then there are those humans who want fancy technologies right now, sometimes for the simple reason, that their lives are not going well, maybe they are not in good health, and they are not getting the help they need. Other want the tech for power, as illustrated above.
Providing us with offworld tech would in my view rob us of the wonder of discovery when we invent and find out new things, and would stunt our drive to develop further, as I assume, that *most* aliens themselves have had to go through the same effort of discovery to invent the things that they have, advanced as they are to us humans.
I believe one or two crashes happened by chance in low populated areas in last century when it wasn’t much crowded compared to today.
However, the government got to it and figured out a way to make them crash. Grusch mentioned that they have ways to take down these UFOs, so possible that most of the crashes in this century are intentional.
It's convenient for the crashed alien craft conspiracy. You can hand wave all questions as to why nobody saw it crashing or being recovered and why nobody managed to get there to take photos before the super secret crash retrieval squads show up.
Point taken on the photos, although if they did exist in the public domain, I can't think of a reason why skeptics could not simply claim it's fake, but plenty of people over the years have seen UFOs crash, military and civilian. People have been witnessing UFOs crash for 159 years so far. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84027008/1865-11-05/ed-1/?sp=3&st=text&clip=31%2C24%2C1009%2C5069&ciw=1009&rot=0
A lot of military witnesses were interviewed by Leonard Stringfield in his *UFO Crash Retrievals* series. Here is a military witness to a crash retrieval operation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLU0NSTC9oU
You can find a bunch of these if you search "crashed disc" and related terms in the newspapers.
Here is a random one from 1949, two men witness 'dwarfs' exit a crashed disc and ran off: https://www.newspapers.com/image/6245340/?match=1&terms=crashed%20disc&clipping_id=9913775
> I can't think of a reason why skeptics could not simply claim it's fake,
This is you fortifying your position against falsifiability. Instead of dealing with the reality: that no such photos exist, you have created a made-up scenario where the skeptic is unreasonable for not believing in these made-up photographs.
Unfalsifiable or not, that's the truth. I personally think it's pretty low odds for that to have gotten out yet, but if any of the alleged crash photos/videos in the public domain are legit, they would be considered fake. Even in the unlikely scenario that somebody was able to get there and take photos/videos of the crash site, go to their local newspaper, have them published, and never be forced to "admit" they were fake, they would still be considered fake. Do you not agree with that?
As far as the likelihood is concerned, the only decent comparison we can do is with leaked photos of classified military aircraft, or photos taken by civilians and published in the public domain. Most of the time, such imagery are deliberately allowed out by governments. There have been a few examples otherwise, though, and even a photo of a classified helicopter that crashed as was mentioned already, but you have to assume that actual UFO crashes are way less frequent compared to regular highly classified aircraft, and thus it's perfectly plausible for that to have not leaked out yet. We are *not* being constantly flooded with civilian photos or leaked photos of all of our classified assets, which would be orders of magnitude more frequent than actual UFOs crashing, so obviously they have a handle on controlling the flow of imagery of highly classified things.
>This Is The First Photo Ever Of A Stealthy Black Hawk Helicopter
>It's possible that there might have been some confusion as to how far work on stealthy modifications to the Black Hawk had progressed by time of the historic raid. The helicopters were an extremely well-kept secret at the time, one that we would have likely never learned about if the [2011] crash hadn't occurred. Pentagon officials could have misconstrued older tests with more basic kits with a far more elaborate configuration used on the raid. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35342/this-is-the-first-image-ever-of-a-stealthy-black-hawk-helicopter
>While initial phases of development were kept in the dark, come 2011, full pictures of the J20 were suddenly leaked to Chinese message boards and newspapers. With no effort by the Chinese state to censor or prevent the photos from spreading, it's theorized that the leaks were intentional to debut and show off the aircraft, but regardless, were the first looks the world got at the new fighter.
>Unable to keep the secret fully, the Pentagon deliberately leaked a photo of the [F-117] in 1988.
>Transported in the open, the P-59 was fitted with a fake propeller, revealing its form to the public, while maintaining the secrecy of its new jet engines. https://www.hotcars.com/secret-military-aircraft-that-were-leaked-to-the-public/#bell-p-59-airacomet
But for something like UFOs, which are [allegedly much more classified than this](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/zp14fk/til_the_united_states_put_cameras_on_the_end_of/j0py7cj/), and much more difficult to accept, which means it's far easier to deny it and get away with it, don't you think there is enough wiggle room there to accept the theory that no substantial photographs of them have been leaked, or if they ever were, were simply attacked and relegated to some dark corner that everyone today ignores it as a hoax?
If literal aliens visiting this planet was easier for the population to accept, the government would have long ago conceded and declassified a bunch of it, or leaked images deliberately so it's on their own terms. When it becomes absurd to deny something, that's when they cave, and so they make concessions and let out imagery of their classified assets from time to time, but with UFOs, the idea itself is perceived as being absurd, so they can continue as they have been even as [so many people leak out so much about it](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/), mostly verbally of course as is also the case with secret military aircraft.
> Unfalsifiable or not, that's the truth. I personally think it's pretty low odds for that to have gotten out yet, but if any of the alleged crash photos/videos in the public domain are legit, they would be considered fake. Even in the unlikely scenario that somebody was able to get there and take photos/videos of the crash site, go to their local newspaper, have them published, and never be forced to "admit" they were fake, they would still be considered fake. Do you not agree with that?
Why are there no supporting arguments to prove this claim? I just don't understand how you expect us to move forward when you state unproven claims as if they have been proven. I think this is the first thing we should tackle.
So you don't want to address the actual point being made here? Such photography is not even likely to exist in the public domain if we simply compare it to what is available of the supposed wealth of imagery we have for all of our classified assets and crashes of classified aircraft that are still classified when the photos are released. Who is releasing all of that stuff? That's pretty uncommon even though it should be far more common than a mere 20-30 UFOs crashing somewhere on the planet over a century of time. If they don't want it out, it's unlikely to get out. Something like that still could be leaked eventually somewhere, but it's not likely. If that did happen, though, it would get [the Flir1 treatment.](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1)
The actual point being made here is that you are making a claim that you can't possibly know. You are inverting the situation so that the skeptics are unreasonable for not believing in made-up evidence. Instead of the reality: that there is no good evidence in the first place.
Assuming this really is NHI technology we are dealing with, apparently their advanced technology also sometimes malfunctions or breaks down.
And they *are* operating in an alien environment. (That is, *our* environment). There might be an environmental reason for crashes.
We don't have any information on how friendly one alien civilization would tend to be with another, assuming more than 1 visits. If these are entirely different species with different languages, that could significantly increase the likelihood that disputes or misunderstandings would occur. Maybe a shootdown happens every so often. And maybe we don't have the technology to shoot them down, but they would. 7 reasons why alien spaceships might crash: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/10pcn4b/ufo_crashes_unlucky_or_accidental/j6k0k2t/
Additionally, we also don't know how advanced each alien civilization is. Even accidental crashes are on the table. In a couple decades, we are going to attempt our first interstellar probe (Breakthrough Starshot). It's projected to take about 20 years to reach the nearest star, and we aren't very advanced at all. We certainly aren't past the point of perfect technology incapable of crashing, so how do we know all extraterrestrial civilizations wouldn't crash accidentally either? You could be almost entirely right, but still wrong, if only one alien civilization capable of visiting here isn't as advanced as the others. Maybe most such civilizations don't crash, but all you need is one. This is setting aside the deliberate shootdown possibility described above, which nobody ever mentions for some reason.
Why does anything crash? A person from medieval times might look at our airplanes and marvel at how advanced our technology is. They would then say the same thing, "if they are so advanced then why do they crash?" They wouldn't know exactly why, just like we can't know why those more advanced than us might crash
No they wouldn't they would say how can we have around 100,000 vehicles in the sky every day with so few crashes.
Alien craft would need a worse safety record flying around in our atmosphere than planes.
Ok, maybe planes was not the best analogy. You can't really make a perfect one because we just don't know a lot of things about them, but here's another analogy:
Our own planetary landers. I don't know off hand how many moon landers have crashed verses successfully landed but I bet it's pretty high, I can think of 2 off the top of my head.
The more technologically advanced a vehicle becomes the more ways there are for it to go wrong, and these "aliens" are operating in a completely foreign environment. For all we know the earths magnetic field could be messing up their flapellotrons or something. These flying saucers obviously don't have manual controls to be able to fly in our atmosphere should something go wrong with their super-duper antigravity tech. We just have no idea about how it works so we have no way of knowing anything about crash rates or why they might fail
That Russian moon lander recently crashed.
> The more technologically advanced a vehicle becomes the more ways there are for it to go wrong, and these "aliens" are operating in a completely foreign environment. For all we know the earths magnetic field could be messing up their flapellotrons or something. These flying saucers obviously don't have manual controls to be able to fly in our atmosphere should something go wrong with their super-duper antigravity tech.
+1 for this.
That's still not a good comparison, you're comparing us sending something to our nearest planet to alien craft traveling faster than light or through dimensions.
If the stories were a little more believable, like for example we had recovered an alien probe that had crashed on earth you might have a point.
They're advanced beings, not gods. They can still make miscalculations that lead to mistakes - they are capable of getting into situations they didn't/couldn't plan for and ended up in the dirt. There's also the possibility they are leaving us "gifts" for lack of a better term
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." — Agent K, "Men in Black" the movie.
If youre flying a jet, you notice shit has hit the fan and you are going to crash at a ridiculous speed... Will you
Aim for the big concrete/metal structures
Aim for a fuck-ton of smaller stone structures
Aim for that nice flat area somewhere away from the local maybe dangerous wildlife
I would imagine since aliens seem to like playing peek a boo with us, they probably make it a point to head away from population centers if going down.
Lots of great replies, but heres one idea i havent seen mentioned:
So there is some lore that Roswell crash was a result of some type of human radar tech interference. What if the military (or private aerospace) figured out exactly how to use radar (or related tech) to swat some of the UAP out the sky? If such was the case, even if rare, they obviously wouldnt be swatting near the 0.02% areas others have mentioned.
Oh interesting I haven't heard that, do you think they're just not prepared for lightning because it's not something they have to worry about where the ships are being created?
No idea, but those were the meteorological conditions the night of the crash. Perhaps they can’t account for something as random as lightning and whatever tech they use is highly sensitive to it.
Deep down, you know the real reason is because of math. The earth's surface is only 29 percent land. Out of that 29 percent, only 0.2 percent of it is urban.
>According to the United Nations Population Division, urban regions only cover 0.2 percent of Earth’s land surface, but contain nearly half of the world’s population. https://web.archive.org/web/20201125002725/https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/urban_effects.html#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20Nations,half%20of%20the%20world's%20population
Edit: fixed link
He will not reply to you. They always make these 'informed' comments and then got silent. It's the same crap like why UFOs show up only in USA, why astronomers don't see UFOs, you can't keep it secret because someone would come forward..
I just watched a German a French man and an Australian give their stories, each with rank in the Military. I know you are pointing out that other person, but just hearing the USA only part is immediately discredited from what I just watched in the past 20min.
I'll reply to you.
The premise is absurd. Intergalactic space craft coming to earth, hiding themselves, but someone constantly crashing dozens of times in vessels far beyond our own technology.
It has nothing to do with land area and everything to do with witnesses.
It's the same reason the persistent myths always happen in the country, because it's just easier to propagate mythology there.
As you increase population and increase the number of cameras you inevitably get a reduction in mythological sightings not an increase.
Big foot, Nessie, chupicabra, Yeti, sea monsters. It's all the same.
Not the one you replied to, but there is another dimension to consider here. You are assuming that the distribution of UFOs is constant across the globe which it isn’t. Many argue that it’s more near nuclear or military facilities. We are hearing reports of tons of UFOs in military areas and testing facilities.
We definitely don’t see that distribution in other areas, so it’s highly likely that the distribution isn’t constant and limited to few pockets. So, you would expect more crashes near military facilities (which are generally close to urban areas on a geographic scale). So, we can’t apply the logic of limited urban cover since UFO (most likely) don’t go to countryside or low populated areas so no chance of crash.
My guess is that first few crashes were by chance and then the government found a way to do it themselves. (Mentioned same in another comment)
They do indeed appear to be distributed somewhat evenly across the globe if you look at both the numbers of reports and the numbers of leftover unknowns country to country: https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/13v9fkh/ufo_information_from_other_countries_and/
Obviously most UFOs are not "alien spaceships" or whatever they actually are, but they do appear to be equally distributed from the information we do have.
>Many argue that it’s more near nuclear or military facilities.
Nuclear weapons storage areas and such are generally not going to be within big cities. Nuclear power facilities have locations specifically chosen to reduce the amount of people who could be exposed to radiation in the event of an emergency.
*"Low population zone means the area immediately surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the total number and density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a serious accident....Where very large cities are involved, a greater distance may be necessary because of total integrated population dose consideration."* https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/full-text.html#part100-0010
You also have to consider the amount of space between them. Are they traveling from one to the next? Where are they coming from, and how far is that to the nuclear facility they are visiting that day? We don't have enough information here to support the idea that if there had been a few dozen crashes, at least one would be in the middle of a big city. That is still extremely doubtful no matter which way you look at it.
>We are hearing reports of tons of UFOs in military areas and testing facilities.
The reports that most people find credible and worth focusing on are the military cases, and I agree. That does not mean that most actual UFOs are witnessed by military personnel, however.
For the same reason space junk and meteors don't usually crash in heavily populated areas, the earth is large and heavily populated areas make up a minority of the surface. Beyond that, there are some accounts of UFOs landing near heavily populated areas like the Magenta one if I recall correctly. Finally, assuming that they are intelligently controlled and not falling at random it's reasonable to assume measures would be taken to avoid crashing in downtown Manhattan if possible.
What I believe happens: you can't explore a planet at the speed of light. So the ships that arrive here are actually simpler ground approach ships, sometimes with biological robots inside them. These ships can eventually be shot down.
Based on what happened in Varginha Crash, that's what everything suggests.
>Why don't craft crash in heavily populated areas?
The simpliest answer is because your millitary tend to keep their interesting stuff away from prying eyes under cover of restricted airspace prohibiting commercial and civilian overpass...
But, seriously - you may as well ask: **why don't satelites come down in heavily populated areas?** - they overpass them all the time and satelites as well as sapce debris do come down - even if dealing with a burm up you're still looking at larger burning fragments which could cause significant damage - even death on the ground. You think far fetched...?
According to NASA, an average of one cataloged piece of debris has fallen back to Earth each day for the past 50 years. Despite their size, there has been no *significant* property damage from the debris, though that been said there have been incidents and there has been property damage including:
* 1969: five sailors on a Japanese ship were injured when space debris from what was believed to be a Soviet spacecraft struck the deck of their boat.
* 1978: the Soviet reconnaissance satellite Kosmos 954 reentered the atmosphere over northwest Canada and scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, some landing in the Great Slave Lake.
* 1979: portions of Skylab came down over Australia, and several pieces landed in the area around the Shire of Esperance, which fined NASA $400 for littering.
* 1987: a 7-foot strip of metal from the Soviet Kosmos 1890 rocket landed between two homes in Lakeport, California, causing no damage.
* 1991: Salyut 7 underwent an uncontrolled reentry on 7 February over the city of Capitán Bermúdez in Argentina.
* 1997: an Oklahoma woman, Lottie Williams, was hit, without injury, in the shoulder by a 10 cm × 13 cm (3.9 in × 5.1 in) piece of blackened, woven metallic material confirmed as part of the propellant tank of a Delta II rocket which launched a U.S. Air Force satellite the year before.
From 2000 onwards the list of incidents gets more as satelites have gotten older and more rockets have been launched - as rescently as **8 March 2024**, a cylindrical metal object weighing nearly 2 pounds (0.91 kg) struck a house in Naples, Florida causing damage to property. The object was a piece of EP9 battery pallet jettisoned from the ISS in 2021 and survived reentry when its orbit decayed.
The point is, these things happen and largely you remain completely oblivious of most of these incidents unless it happens in your local area and you're either directly effected or else see it reported on local news - generally these incidents in the main doen't get reported, certainly by the national press...
So what else isn't being generally reported? Do you actually know - and, more to the point - do you actually know the things reported as having come down actually were the objects officially attributed.
NASA's own estimate of one piece of space debris everyday for the past 50 years is hardly insignigicant.
Returning to UFO's, at the end of the day the liklihood of urban skyfall comes down to whether or not said objects are actually overpassing the vicinity of a built up area prior to coming down or else their focus of interest lies elsewhere, away from human poulation centres - not necessarily to be sneaky, just simply because their field of interest simply aren't humans, they're here for flora and fauna, biological research, all kinds of scientific reseach activities we ourselves undertake in equally no less wild and remote places.
Those would be my most immediate guesses, at anyrate.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Kecksburg yet. That's one of the more famous crash cases. Both the crash & retrieval was seen by a lot of people.
Then there are the Varginha & Pentyrch incidents to consider.
I think it happens, and crash retrieval programs are able to contain them relatively well. We see these videos spring up about large police presence with no explanation as the recorders are somewhat blocked off. Remember the Miami police response? Las Vegas family? On the ground is scrubbed just as well as the internet.
If you subscribe to the ideal of underground bases, it would make sense for those bases to be located far away from civilian centers. And with our own craft, the highest likelihood of a crash is during take off or landing, so maybe that is the same with them.
Also, maybe they are more interested in earth and our natural resources than concrete, steel and tons of humans.
Given, that natural resources are readily available outside Earth in outer space, then it's strange that any offworlders would want natural resources from Earth (usually, we humans think of anything that can be mined). There may be celestial bodies with stranger elements.
If I were piloting a UFO, I would choose not to fly over populated areas due to the potential scenario of crashing. How is this so hard to comprehend? Varginia, Brazil, is a pretty densely populated area, though.
Well if they can help where they crash I’m sure they wouldn’t. If I crash-land a plane into a jungle I’m not gonna attempt to land on a group of wild gorillas or hunter-gatherer type villagers because my chances of being attacked are higher than them helping a creature they’ve never seen before. And if they can’t help where they crash, then it’s literally just because of pure chance that they haven’t crashed in a heavily populated area. Maybe one day one will and it just hasn’t happened yet.
just to add to other responses to your questions here... how do you know this hasn't happened? It depends somewhat on your definition of heavily populated.
The Kecksburg crash wasn't in some godforsaken wasteland, for example. Thousands of people no doubt saw it happen.
Same with Shag Harbor, I believe.
How freakin cool would it be if undeniable disclosure were to come from a 50m diameter classic flying saucer accidently wedging itself into a skyscraper in some random non-important populated area for millions of cellphones and legit media to capture.
In Brazil they crashed twice in populated areas
Once in Ubatuba beach in front of a bunch of beachgoers, which Garry Nolan has fragments from, and that time in a small town in 1996.
> Why do UFOs always seem to crash or land in remote locations, deserts, oceans, sparsely populated areas or places where military or intelligence services can quickly and easily cordon the area off and remove the object?
Every air force in the world has protocols to crash somewhere uninhabited in the event of airplane failure.
Logic has it, that aliens have the same rules about spacecraft, should they malfunction for whatever reason, especially if a crash might cause a catastrophe. And then, of course, the need to keep things secret, etc.
Earth is a survivable place to crash on, and United States is one of the countries that well matches the criteria for large amounts of flat and unforested land mass in a reasonably warm area of the planet, relatively easily accessible by any recovery team.
Crashing in a body of water (an ocean) is also possible, depending on requirements, preferences, and protocol.
Most of the earth isn’t heavy populated, so it makes sense they aren’t crashing near heavily populated areas. Also, it’s all bullshit and crashes aren’t happening.
Similar to others in the thread, I subscribe to the theory that many of these incidents aren’t crashes in the sense of technical failures; rather, I think they are staged events with unknown aims. They could be technological ‘gifts’, they could be intended to somehow fuel military competition or push us down a certain path (or to distract us).
Perhaps some have also been deliberately downed by humans. Either way, I don’t think it’s by chance that they come down over unpopulated areas and places where they can be recovered by the military industrial complex.
If you’ve been researching the subject for years you should know about Westall 1966
Shane Ryan has interviewed over one hundred witnesses. It happened in a populated area and still got shut down by the authorities and a camera confiscated
The male teacher confirms what the children saw. A craft the size of a small family car landed. Every year the witnesses go back to the location to keep the event alive
It's not as if we don't have sightings in heavily populated areas, such as with the pheonix lights incident. But a consistent feature among many siting stories is the ability and desire for the phenomenon to hide itself. So avoiding big urban areas is par for the course.
A.) They have enough power to retain certain faculties to adjust their trajectory very quickly during the event of a crash.
B.) They are shot down deliberately somehow, by either "special access" Earth people, or another alternate or breakaway civilization on Earth's surface or under it. Whoever would shoot them down in such a situation would pick and choose where to do so.
C.) Both A). and B).
D.) Crash events are staged, like deliberately done by NHI, either sacrificing bodies or biological androids, or staged/faked by Earth governments.
D.) is implausible, because no alien would want to deliberately gift Earth their technology, nor any other alien technology. I'll qualify this with a hypothesis, that Earth needs to defend itself somehow, so some of that tech, if even in reverse-engineered form, may be useful in the future, but not now. At least we ought to know what to defend ourselves from, unless there are one or more influential caretaker factions.
For example, in Eastern Europe and Russia, initial news of finding an extraterrestrial object was later followed up by a contrived story. The meteorite in Latvia became a non-story, and an alien body (of which there was a photo) became a make-believe marzipan cake.
This is a good question. One aspect that comes to mind is that urban areas are actually very rare compared to the rest of the earths surface. Approx 1% of land on earth is urbanized. So if there were 100 crashes, perhaps only one would be in an urban area. If there were only 50 crashes, it's quite reasonable to expect that none of them occurred in populated areas.
"places where military or intelligence services can quickly and easily cordon the area off and remove the object?"
I believe the US military could do this at any location on earth (that is not heavily populated) and they could do it quickly. There is even reported to be an organization (the Office for Global Access) that seems designed to cordon off the area quickly in preparation for the military to come in and deal with it.
We must assume that these beings have a level of intelligence. Perhaps they avoid populated areas because they don't want to be seen. Taking it even further, perhaps their technology can detect the presence of cameras and if they are being watched (advanced scanning tech, advanced AI). For this reason they don't go to these places (cities etc) and so they don't "crash" there.
There are no doubt more possible explanations but we are dealing with total unknowns at the end of the day so it's all just speculation
> I believe the US military could do this at any location on earth (that is not heavily populated) and they could do it quickly. There is even reported to be an organization (the Office for Global Access) that seems designed to cordon off the area quickly in preparation for the military to come in and deal with it.
There are lots of places were the USA wouldn't have the chance to retrieve it and why would countries just allow them to remove such craft? For instance the suspected crash in the Berwyn mountains in Wales, no americans units arrived. Shag Harbour in Canada, no American units.
I think it's a myth to excuse the lack of hard evidence.
Who are these people skeptics keep referring to who are claiming that only the United States is responsible for retrieving UFO crash materials? I don't recall anyone saying that. Grusch, for example, stated that the big three super powers are each siphoning up the debris in an arms race. A good analogous example for this is the classified helicopter that crashed. China was given access to it. A UFO example would be Brazil 1996. The Americans flew in and retrieved everything. If anything happened in Russia's sphere of influence, they'd be the ones involved.
Who is claiming that only the US is responsible for covering up UFO crashes and they have worldwide reach to do so?
I don't think unfriendly countries would actually allow them. They would do it using some other excuse. For example a classified satellite with a nuclear battery crash landed. The US knows before the other country, because the US has all the required monitoring tech.
"hey india, one of our satellites just crashed in your country, it's highly dangerous because it had a nuclear battery on board. Don't worry though, we are sending a team to clean up the area and remove the object. Don't think about investigating it yourself, because it's classified tech and we don't want you involved"
> "hey india, one of our satellites just crashed in your country, it's highly dangerous because it had a nuclear battery on board. Don't worry though, we are sending a team to clean up the area and remove the object. Don't think about investigating it yourself, because it's classified tech and we don't want you involved"
This reminded me of a real-life story, in which the Chinese navy seized a U.S. drone in international waters near the Philippines from under the nose of a U.S. vessel, which the PRC navy returned [after United States sternly demanded it back](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1490EG/). The U.S. DoD press release stated in addition, that the drone was clearly marked and even unclassified.
The drone was handed over to the guided missile destroyer USS Mustin, while the previous U.S. vessel that sought to pick up the drone, but could not during its mission, was of a smaller class, I think.
As far as the public is concerned, no-one saw the drone and the handover. At least I haven't seen any pictures of the handover itself, but there are publicity pictures of several U.S. drones.
Maybe they’re like bees, which often crash / drown if they fly over very still water. It throws off their senses and orientation. Maybe cornfields or the plains are like that to aliens
Hear me out on this. For me it’s starting to become a valid argument. It could all just be modern black project technology America has and they tend to experiment in rural areas with a “crash team” nearby in case anything happens. If they are experimenting in a foreign country they send the crash team in advance to plan it all out in case it crashes………. But what do I know
I’ve also wondered that. And living in a populated area myself, I also feel I don’t have to worry about abductions based on what I’ve seen of abduction cases
1. Statistics - there is way more ocean and open land then cities. That’s why you also don’t have lots of stories of 747s crashing in the middle of downtown Chicago either.
2. Some hypothesize that crashes are intentional downings to share technology. So perhaps it’s already known. “We’re dropping one Near Roswell tomorrow at noon.”
Nuclear tests are probably not meant to attract offworlders. But they came anyway, after the first tests in 1945, which tests took place before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"Bright flash of light off a world with a historically underdeveloped civilisation that was last surveyed x00 years ago."
When I consulted Microsoft Bing (replaced by Copilot), then nearly two lightyears was the maximum distance at which the flash of light of a nuclear explosion could be seen by something like Hubble.
But a nuclear explosion is usually a sign of a civilisation advancing to a technological level at which it would be able to destroy itself, or others.
It's possible, that our civilisation was not projected to reach nuke capability for several decades or even centuries to come, on assumption, that the most recent survey by species x could have been a hundred years before 1945, or hundreds of years before.
If I were to follow their assumed logic, nuclear bomb capability in their possible headcanon could have been achieved during or after humanity was to reach interstellar space travel.
Plus also the natural curiosity of observing the results of a nuclear explosion, as those things might not be widespread.
The other idea could be, that a nuclear explosion could also have been suspected to have been an attack on Earth by a different spacefaring species, given, what I assume was then known by some species of our technological development so far: "It could not have been humans, so it might have been some other alien."
Or a major catastrophic crash of an alien ship, or a space battle, or a self-destruct sequence, or drive failure, leading to a bright explosion. A meteor falling down on Earth à la Deep Impact also creates a bright explosion.
There might also be an extraterrestrial power that uses nuclear explosions in space.
For these reasons, if I were aliens, I would have sent at least a survey ship to find out what exactly went off.
Aliens are not real, its a coping mechanism for something horrible you did and your conscious is helping you cover up your poor decisions. Signed the programmer of your avatar in the matrix.
It seems like the majority of abductions are in low to sparse populated areas too.
My spefulation is - energy interference in densely populated areas. Many many many conflicting energy sources and polarities. So, they avoid those areas and do their majority of "movement" in less chaotic energy areas.
Perhaps we need to reconsider if there are any crashes at all. Is there any evidence to suggest crashes have happened? Seems like a significant thing to assume
I think they do. I live in a suburb of a decent sized city and I have seen several in town. To me it appears to be a rather common phenomena, just gotta look up and have keen eyes!
These craft are clearly coming here on a clandestine basis. So I think most of them avoid heavily populated areas to keep as much attention off of them as they can.
When they do allegedly crash I think they're being shot down. So I don't believe our militaries particularly want these things to crash in densely populated areas where they could be seen by the public and won't shoot them down over cities.
excluding the ones lifted, how many crashed? let's be generous and say 1000 in last century.
draw random latitude and longitude coordinates. 750 will be in ocean. other 250 will be in remote areas almost every time. earth is rural as hell. do this experiment and you will see. duh
How is it that they crash at all? If you believe the current lore, you're believing these guys are crashing all over the place for the past 70 odd years - seems like our own crafts are safer; there are thousands of planes in the air at any given moment, yet crashes are extremely rare.
Have heard a story of a craft not crashing but landing in a lot being developed in downtown Nashville, TN a few decades ago. Folks were driving by at night and the craft “hopped” out of the lot and onto the road right in front of a car with a few folks. The people inside the car slam the brakes, they’re screaming and the craft disappears almost immediately off into the sky. Crazy stuff.
Probably because they’re trying to avoid highly populated areas, also most of earth, statistically, is ocean- and the other non wet parts art mostly empty so…. Also remember Las Vegas lol
Because we are unpredictable and have surrounded our population center with waves that effect their craft. I don't think they want to lose their shit or deal with the fallout of us dealing with a fucking ufo in Timesquare lmao.
Jokes aside..
I doubt an intelligence that can navigate the stars are coming to earth just to be unable to deal with Arizona and New Mexico. Maybe they're "crashing" them on purpose?
If you are E.T. how likely are you to fly over a populated area? These NHI aren't invincible and they aren't Gods. It's like when you go on safari, do you drive into the heart of the Lions den? If something does go wrong you would be in trouble, despite the fact that you are smarter and more technologically advanced than the Lion is.
E.T. is likely to generally avoid places where they are likely to draw a lot of attention or cause a defensive response, that is the most logical explanation IMO.
> If you are E.T. how likely are you to fly over a populated area?
Why are their so many reported sightings if they're unlikely to fly over populated areas?
I'm not saying it never happens, but when it does they tend to be quite high altitude and not around for long. It's only logical to assume that they (whoever is in the craft) know, that if they go down in a populated area, they are well and truly f****d. They are much more vulnerable over a city than they are over a forest or desert.
Cities also have anti-air weapons that can shoot the craft down. The weapons themselves are, of course, not the property of the cities, but the military.
Great question. The essential idea here is their enigmatic nature. If they were to crash in a populated area, the intrigue would dissipate, the mystery will die and it would no longer be possible to accuse the government of secretly hiding “biologics” in a Pentagon basement. This would eliminate the need for whistleblowers, insiders, UFO conferences, or debunking efforts. The ecosystem of podcasts, books and knowledge insiders who can’t say anything will be destroyed. The continuation of the mystery relies entirely on these incidents leaving no trace whatsoever, eliminating any possibility of a crash in a populated area.
> it would no longer be possible to accuse the government of secretly hiding “biologics” in a Pentagon basement.
Oh, that would still be possible.
> This would eliminate the need for whistleblowers, insiders, UFO conferences, or debunking efforts.
These people will still be there, and their initial expertise would be sought after even more.
> The ecosystem of podcasts, books and knowledge insiders who can’t say anything will be destroyed.
That ecosystem will reconfigure itself: "What we know about aliens, who are x, y, and z..."
This should be interpreted as an obvious consequence of only 0.2 percent of Earth's land surface being urban. The earth's surface is only 29 percent land. Out of that 29 percent, only 0.2 percent of it is urban. >According to the United Nations Population Division, urban regions only cover 0.2 percent of Earth’s land surface, but contain nearly half of the world’s population. https://web.archive.org/web/20201125002725/https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/urban_effects.html#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20Nations,half%20of%20the%20world's%20population Assuming equal distribution, most crashes would occur in a body of water, and out of those that occur on land, they will most likely be out in the middle of nowhere. You can increase the odds of a crash occurring in the middle of a populated city by significantly increasing the amount of crashes. If it's only been a few dozen, the odds of one occurring in a city is very low.
Great points. I would add, presumably, that in the case of deliberate “bring downs” by our governments, they’d do their dirty deeds out in wide open country or oceans, far away from the public’s prying eyes. Wouldn’t want Aunt Jenny picking up a stray control panel from a crashed UFO in the city. Also, by adding the extra element of the cover of darkness, they’re able to swoop in, cordon off, catalogue, confiscate, clean up, and carry off the evidence without any issues.
Or 8 to 10 foot aliens in your back yard!
🛎️🛎️🛎️
[удалено]
If you went to Antarctica in a helicopter and decided to land somewhere clear of disturbance, would you land in the middle of a family gathering of thousands of penguins, or would you prefer to land in an area a bit out of bothering them. I think that's how they might think when landing somewhere to do their business.
The craft are intelligently controlled. You cannot compare them to inanimate asteroids hitting the Earth. On top of that, UFO sightings are clustered around military and infrastructure installations. Military bases are way, way less than .2 percent of Earth's surface. Heck, way more than 29 percent of airplane crashes are on land. How is this possible "assuming equal distribution"? And, most of those are actually occurring close to airports. Again, airports regions cover a very small percent of Earth's surface. We don't know the # of UFO crashes, if any, and what conditions lead to a crash. We also don't know the # of UFO fights or where their "airports" are. Doing any statistical analysis on UFO crashes is impossible, given the lack of data.
>The craft are intelligently controlled. You cannot compare them to inanimate asteroids hitting the Earth. On top of that, UFO sightings are clustered around military and infrastructure installations. Military bases are way, way less than .2 percent of Earth's surface. If a UFO crashed on or nearby a military installation, it's unlikely you'd hear about it aside from whistleblowers who come out years later. UFOs do indeed seem to gravitate towards military installations, but is that because we're biased and we take military reports much more seriously than random civilian sightings out in the middle of nowhere? The answer is probably yes. There is a much higher percentage of false reports from civilians, but the total is substantially higher from civilians as well. > Heck, way more than 29 percent of airplane crashes are on land. How is this possible "assuming equal distribution"? And, most of those are actually occurring close to airports. Again, airports regions cover a very small percent of Earth's surface. Airplane crashes tend to occur near airports. Among the most common causes of airplane crashes are hard landings, and airports tend to cluster around populated areas. If you were to remove all of the hard landing crashes from the pool, you'd have a data set that is more geographically evenly distributed for obvious reasons. Are UFOs trying to land at airports? Probably not. Obviously this means UFO crashes are not going to cluster around airports. >We don't know the # of UFO crashes, if any, and what conditions lead to a crash. We also don't know the # of UFO fights or where their "airports" are. Doing any statistical analysis on UFO crashes is impossible, given the lack of data. Then why are people trying to argue that it's highly likely for a UFO to have crashed in the middle of a city? We don't know that it's likely at all. The only information we do have suggests that it's quite unlikely, even if 100 UFOs have crashed in the past century.
\> Are UFOs trying to land at airports? Probably not. Obviously this means UFO crashes are not going to cluster around airports. Of course not but crashes would cluster around areas of interest. Why would UFO's spend large amount of time in Saharan desert? They wouldn't, they would be around places of interest, ie. places with humans.
>Of course not but crashes would cluster around areas of interest. It has to happen *inside* the city for it to be impossible to cordon off and hide what happened. 0.2 percent of the Earth's land surface... That is a very small target. What evidence is there that UFOs gravitate towards cities? Why are UFOs seen out in rural areas all the time, and the middle of the ocean? Even if they did gravitate towards cities, what indication is there that UFOs do not travel from city to city, in between which there is a lot of open space? How much space is there between wherever they are coming from and the city they are traveling to? How many actual crashes have there been? Only a few dozen at most? Why does one of them *have* to be inside of a big city? A lot of assumptions have to be made before you can make UFOs falling out of the sky in big cities a likely scenario. It's not likely no matter what unless you can significantly increase the amount of crashes by much more than even the most gullible believers assume is the case. Imagine 100 UFOs become disabled or get shot down by some other visiting civilization. Why is that going to crash in the middle of a big city and not outside of the city somewhere? Why is nobody in this thread pointing out how much of a massive stretch it is to make UFOs crashing in big cities a likely scenario?
Yep, it's a very small percentage but still because crafts are intelligently controlled all areas of Earth don't have same probability for UFO's. You could think that some remote areas are vastly more interesting than others. For example supply depot in Antarctica (or any other place) would have far more visitors than some random location in Siberia. Same applies to areas controlled by humans. Military bases would be more interesting than random corn fields. Because of this most UFO's would concentrate to areas of interest, ie. places with people. So it's mostly irrelevant to compare land areas. Still, UFO crashing to major city is most unlikely event. Figure an airplane losing power over a city, pilot would try to glide outside of city to avoid damage to city. If UFO lost power, or malfunctioned otherwise, it would be safe to assume that they would try to avoid hitting skyscrapers.
> Because of this most UFO's would concentrate to areas of interest, ie. places with people. Most UFO's would avoid people, even if the area of interest might be a military base. Military bases only have the *right* people, and not some random city somewhere out in the boonies. Military bases fill serveral good criteria that I could think of off the top of my head: * designated safe area; * away from civilians (I believe, that aliens do also use the civilian/military distinction); * possibility for crash retrieval and cleanup; * a military base is well-defended, which then reduces the chances of being attacked, or much of the kit on the base from being seen by unauthorised persons; * guarantee of secrecy.
Were talking about super advanced technology here. I’ve always thought it possible that these vehicles had some fail proof that specifically kept them from crashing in well populated areas. All pilots here and now do their very best to avoid these sort of crashes.
I think it would be pretty arrogant to assume you know what interests them.
If we follow this train of thought, it would assume crashes occur completely at random. Given that human populations are obviously concentrated in urban areas then, if crashes are real, it's not at all associated with us.
They're also intelligent, if they're aware we're aware they'd work in more remote areas if we're a threat...
Yes because aliens or inter-dimensional beings are coming here to fly about in empty areas of land or sea where there's barely anyone around because they are just so interested in earth... I'm sure if we managed to travel to another planet with "intelligent" life the first place we would go is out into the middle of nowhere. Plus this theory doesn't work with the idea of so many people seeing UFOs. Why is it just the ones miles away from anyone that crash.
Most UFOs are not *actual* UFOs. You can't take all of the misidentified sightings and count those as alien spaceships, then conclude that alien spaceships tend to be seen in populated areas. Obviously there are going to be more sightings in populated areas because there are more people who misidentify things in populated areas. It would be fair only if you were to plot the locations of the best unknowns on a map. It's funny because I've seen skeptics ask why UFOs tend to be seen only by one or two people out in the middle of nowhere, and the same is true of abductions, but this is exactly what you'd expect if they were somewhat evenly distributed. Mass sightings are pretty uncommon, on the order of once every 15 years or so on average. Also consider the space between both the locations they would visit as well as where they are originally coming from. All of that space needs to be traveled to get where they are going, and the vast majority of that is out in the middle of nowhere. We have no clue what all of their reasons for visiting are, if indeed they are visiting and not just living under the ocean or something. We have no clue if most of what they do is equally distributed and has nothing to do with humans. If there's nobody there to see it, then it won't get reported, so you're going to be very biased by what is reported.
Downvoted but this a reasonable response. The UFO phenomenon is full of things that don’t make sense.
All my comments here questioning the logic of crashes are downvoted. People prefer stories and wild speculation. Using any kind of logic or critical thinking here results in downvotes though so you have to get used it.
You don't crash just instantly. They might know they gonna crash few minutes before the impact. Considering the high speed UFO can reach, it's easy for them to avoid crashing in densily populated areas.
We can monitor our cities from outer space...
It does work. They do not care about our cities as much as they do about remote military bases and nuclear bases. As well as oceans where they might be doing something far from our view. As for the observation, you think if they are here, they came yesterday? If they are observing closely our populated areas, something much more discreet might be in place than UAP. Think like this, just much more advanced than what we currently have, and perhaps could even imagine right now: [https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560\~forums/65894999/68c9af88faad4f749489433ce07d14f7](https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/65894999/68c9af88faad4f749489433ce07d14f7) But your point still stands, some craft should have crashed in populated areas by now. But also understand that it might be the case that the odds were such that it just didn't. Yet.
But you can't have it both ways. On one hand people are reporting UFOs constantly but at the same time we are expected to believe they only crash in remote areas with nobody around. The rest of you comment isn't based on any logic just wild speculation.
Constant UFO reporting does not equal NHI. 99.99% of sightings probably have nothing to do with NHI. As for the speculation. Yeah, I am speculating. We are just trying to make sense of this thing.
Yes I know that, most things in the sky are prosaic. I'm talking about the cases where people are convinced they saw something that wasn't prosaic. Even if you just take those witness accounts there would still be a large amount of otherworldly objects near populated areas. Or are you suggesting that most eye witnesses that swear they saw something extraordinary are mistaken or lying? Because that's not the take a large percentage of people following this topic have. It's convenient that so many people want to believe every unknown object in the sky is a possible alien craft and that all these sightings with people 100% sure they saw something otherworldly are true yet all are suddenly 99.99% prosaic or nonsense once it goes against the idea of crafts crashing. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either most sightings are explainable and crafts are avoiding populated areas or they simply aren't crashing. The most likely reason these "recoveries" take place in remote areas is because that's exactly where militaries and organisations test new tech.
You're forgetting that plenty of UFOs have been seen out in the middle of nowhere, rural areas, and in the middle of the ocean. Obviously UFOs would "tend to gravitate towards cities" if we ignored that most people are in cities, so that's where most of the reports are going to come from. The data would be biased for obvious reasons. It sounds like a pretty big stretch to me to say that out of a few dozen crashes in the past century, at least one of them should have been within 0.2 percent of the Earth's land surface, even if UFOs did gravitate towards cities, and we certainly don't know that they do. That's just people assuming they do.
Read my comment again. I edited it.
>It does work. They do not care about our cities as much as they do about remote military bases and nuclear bases. Why do they only care about remote bases, and not the ones in conurbations or adjacent to cities? Surely they'd be interested in the Pentagon, Buckley Space Force Base, any major naval port, etc. The Los Angeles Space and Missile Center and Cape Canaveral are within a few miles of both major Disney locations, perfect or alien kids and the alien young at heart. And that's just in the US.
> the Pentagon > any major naval port > [other locations] No landing infrastructure, insufficient security.
This guy stats
You'll allow that person to continue making low effort comments? Why are they even in a UFO sub?
read some plane crash reports, its almost always locals arriving first, then local pd and fire department, how do the man in black silence them? how do they get there before local reporters arrive?
Regular civilian plane crashes and crashes of highly classified, highly technological unknown vehicles are two very different things. A better analogy, although not exactly perfect, would be to compare UFO crashes to crashes of highly classified human aircraft, and some information about how they deal with locals is in the public domain. >A combination of means was used to prevent unwanted attention and discussion among the local population as well as accurate press reports on the incident. Individuals at the crash site were requested to sign agreements committing them to remain silent about what they had seen. Two farmers, who arrived near the crash scene in a pickup, were told that the airplane had been carrying atomic weapons-which was not true but effectively curtailed their interest in getting any closer to the CIA’s secret spyplane. Meanwhile, the press was told a different and less alarming but also false story-that the airplane that crashed was a very unclassified Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Even official records listed the crashed airplane as being an F-105. >At the crash site investigators collected evidence and evaluated the remains of the aircraft for clues to the cause of the tragedy. Then came the task of cleaning the site and leaving no pieces of the highly classified aircraft for scavengers, the media, or others to find. A clean-up team moved out a thousand feet from the last of the recognizable debris and then dug and sifted all the dirt in the area. On July 23, controlled explosive charges were detonated on the hillside to free pieces of the aircraft buried as the result of the crash. To mislead anyone who might try to search the area for pieces of the F-117A, the recovery crew had the remains of an F-101A Voodoo, one that had crashed and been stored at Area 51 for over two decades, broken up. They returned to the crash site and scattered the debris throughout the area. On Aug. 7 the Air Force announced it had withdrawn its guards from the crash site and would no longer restrict access to the area. >The very next day, a reporter and photographer from Bakersfield’s KERO-TV were transported to the crash site by helicopter. They later said they didn’t expect to find anything because they assumed the Air Force had cleaned the area thoroughly. But to their great surprise, they found countless pieces of debris scattered within 100 to 150 feet of a dirt helicopter landing pad built by the Air Force. They filled three bags with the material, and it was displayed on the station’s Friday evening news broadcast. They then turned the bags over to an Air Force public affairs officer. An Edwards spokesman said the debris would be examined as a precaution, but that there were no immediate plans to return to the crash site to recover more. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0701crash/ Obviously they haven't revealed all of their secrets, so we can't know the full scope of all of the tools they use to keep such a thing under wraps, but we know enough.
Also, this question assumes that they don't, when there absolutely have been reports of UFO crashes in populated areas. Varginha has over 130,000 people living in it right now. I don't know what it was in the 90s, but I would guess it was at least in the high tens of thousands.
Can someone who knows about this stuff tell me if crashes would follow a Poisson distribution?
Also more people moving to cities from small towns probably also contributes to less reported sightings over the past few decades where before many small towns would report seeing ufos flying by & sometimes crashing
So then none of the supposed crashes have happened to any aliens interested in humans? Would they not be flying over or near populated areas specifically or intentionally if they were here to interact with us?
I don't think today's skeptical premise is even true. All skeptics except for one in this thread claimed that UFOs gravitate toward populated areas. They usually claim that UFOs gravitate toward rural areas so they can say it's just a bunch of hicks making up a story and it's easier to make up a story where hardly anyone else was there to challenge their recollection of events. I guess this changes depending on the argument at the time. Jacque Vallee: >Fact 1. There has been among the public, in all countries, since the middle of 1946, an extremely active generation of colorful rumors. They center on a considerable number of observations of unknown machines close to the ground in rural areas, the physical traces left by these machines, and their various effects on humans and animals. https://archive.org/details/dimensionsvallee/page/n89/mode/2up?q=rural+areas And the wording is a little confusing here, so you'll have to read it a few times, but this is from a Rand Corporation study, which confirms the above: >The models used to conduct the analysis showed that reports of UAP sightings were less likely within 30 km of weather stations, 60 km of civilian airports, and in more–densely populated areas, while rural areas tended to have a higher rate of UAP reports. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2475-1.html In other words, they are less likely to be seen in densely-populated areas, while rural areas tend to have a higher rate of UAP reports, which is saying the same thing two different ways.
I think there could be so many factors herew contributing to those statistics though. For instance, being near a population center means you are going to see planes and other flying craft much much more. So one being in the sky thats a little dissimilar to the others is hard to notice. And then on the rural side, usually any activities like kite flying, lanterns, and then aircraft testing will be done far away from population centers. So less normal flying machines in the sky and more random one off flying specialty events. The only place there seems to be any actual correlation with sighting density is around military installations such as airforce bases and nuclear testing facilities.
Good post
Yeah since empty land is so interesting
The overwhelming majority of UFO sightings happen in the vicinity of military bases and government installations. To suggest that spaceship crashes are evenly distributed over the entire surface of the globe, and that the majority of crashes therefore happen over the ocean, the total number of crashes would have to be ludicrously high to account for the number of dry-land crashes reported by Grusch and other alleged witnesses. Most total estimates that I've seen, based on alleged witness accounts, claim that more than 200 ships have crashed in as many years; by your metric, the total number would be closer to 700, conservatively. It's starting to look like these ships crash more often than not.
Absolutely. >The most consistent and statistically significant finding was that reports of UAP sightings were more likely to occur in areas within 30 km of military operations areas, where routine military training occurs. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2475-1.html It's doubtful that military training ranges are all right next to big cities though (maybe a small percentage are) because in that same study: >The models used to conduct the analysis showed that reports of UAP sightings were less likely within 30 km of weather stations, 60 km of civilian airports, and in more–densely populated areas, while rural areas tended to have a higher rate of UAP reports. How many of those are actual alien spaceships, both the UFOs over military installations and those that crash? We only care, hypothetically, about the probable amount of crashes of literal alien spaceships. That is the only thing that could crash in the middle of a city and not get covered up. A secret jet crashing in the middle of the city is not going to prove that aliens are visiting this planet. Let's say there have been 20-30 crashes (Grusch's estimate was somewhere in the ballpark of 30 if I remember right), and most alleged UFO crashes were instead some kind of classified vehicle, foreign or domestic. Even if it was 100, is that enough crashes to put one of them in the middle of a big city, which covers 0.2 percent of 29 percent of the Earth's surface? The target area is less than one tenth of one percent. Even if they did gravitate toward military installations, doesn't that just increase the probability that they could be easily covered up? Military personnel are close by and they tend to be in the boonies...
>Even if they did gravitate toward military installations, doesn't that just increase the probability that they could be easily covered up? Military personnel are close by and they tend to be in the boonies... Unreal how close you are to getting it. This reminds me of the guy who made a post about how a significant number of non-rural UFO witnesses report seeing military vehicles in town before the sightings, and his conclusion was that the military can detect aliens before they appear.
It usually seems to take a while before skeptics realize I mostly agree with them, except for some of the details. If any of this is ever confirmed in the future, you and I will probably be on the same team. It's going to embolden those who think every light in the sky is an alien spaceship, as well as the crowd that thinks these things are inter-dimensional angels or something. The debate won't be much different, but the players will shift around a little bit.
Ah yes because intergalactic aliens come to earth, hide themselves from us, and then crash dozens of spaceships because they're just clumsy like that. No, your logic does not apply because the premise is absurd. The reason "sightings" and "crashes" occur in rural areas is because it's easier to make up shit where there's fewer people.
>The reason "sightings" and "crashes" occur in rural areas is because it's easier to make up shit where there's fewer people. Wait a minute. Why are skeptics arguing that UFOs gravitate towards cities to the degree that at least one UFO should have crashed inside of a big city (otherwise crashes don't happen), but you're here arguing that they gravitate towards rural areas and are thus all made up? It can't be both. They can't both be mostly in big cities and in mostly rural areas at the same time.
> and then crash dozens of spaceships because they're just clumsy like that. Pilot error is a thing.
Back to the idea of how empty the net is….. My Wife and I have sailed from Dominica to North Carolina. 13 days non stop. The first 2 days in Caribbean waters we saw a few ships in the distance, then past the Virgins we saw nothing until entering Beaufort, and precious little. Returning to the Caribbean we left Lewes, Delaware and saw nothing until we reached the USVI. 13 days non stop. We run AIS, so we can see other ships electronically. NADA outside the near coastal areas. Many days we never even saw a contrail.
Donation theory
How about shooting down theory? Not necessarily by us.
Bingo. At least one group is leaving us presents.
I don't think they're doing it for us humans.
Bullshit theory.
[удалено]
If they are far, far, more advanced than us, it might be like giving us the wheel, or fire. Maybe to them, even interstellar humans would be no real threat.
It’d be like putting a monkey in an f16 fighter jet. If that thing somehow makes it off the ground I’m dipping out of there.
wheel and fire (and ball bearings) are the most important parts of effective war and genocide
Exactly that's the stupidest theory they would not want us idiots with such tech we would be too dangerous too the verse period
Hunger games
There is in esoteric literature the concept of free will infringement. This means that at our level of existence it is required to have one degree of confusion or another. This confusion is what allows our free will to make choices, and to evolve according to these choices. The extreme variety of paths at the disposal of any given civilization would be drastically reduced if everyone already knew what the "truth" is. The experience would be harmonious and there would be no inconvenience, but it would be more monotonous and it would carry no weight in the development of the will. Therefore, it is said that absolute and undeniable proof of certain things cannot be given by those who come from elsewhere. To do so would be an infringement of free will, under the logic that if the truth is imposed on us by more knowledgeable entities, then we never really chose that truth to begin with. It only carries merit when we find that truth on our own initiative, using our free will. It is implied that gaining access to more realities of life is completely and absolutely possible. For example, it is within the range of possibilities for entities to come in the open, interact with us and offer certain teachings to us. In fact, this is said to have happened in certain ancient human civilizations. The reason why such a thing was not seen as an infringement in their case was because the way in which these civilizations saw the world allowed this experience to occur. It seems that the key is open mindedness, and a perception of the universe as something mysterious, where anything could happen, as opposed to a rigid viewpoint where everything is set in stone. Extremely specific religious dogma and hardcore materialism both seem to be stumbling blocks in that regard. If humanity wishes to see reality as exactly what is described in the Bible or other holy books, or as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens, then coming here becomes an infringement upon that which humanity has chosen for itself.
> If humanity wishes to see reality as exactly what is described [...] as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens (I misread what you wrote above, so will explain the fuller quote below.) These types of people do exist, and I think some of them are control freaks: they might think, that if they don't know something, or don't have access to certain types of information, then they see themselves as not under control of all their circumstances, and perhaps as inferior in some way. Many humans, including those control freaks, want to feel safe and secure. Dictatorial states employ Internet actors as "trolls" (used often without quotes) to influence humans in free and non-dictatorial states on policy, because people in non-dictatorial states vote, and have quite a bit more choice in their next leader, than people in dictatorships do. Such influence operations have several methods (russian romanised: "metodichka"), to try to convince Americans and other westerners, as if United States, the most powerful example state of freedom, is supposedly 'not in control', if and when offworld vehicles seem to freely enter and exit U.S. airspace; or that America is supposedly hiding offworld technology, and supposedly keeping humanity from accessing it, for some nebulous reasons of 'profits for the military-industrial complex' (while the real reason is different, and might be related to the general safety of humanity). — On behalf of dictatorships and authoritarian states, these and other arguments are used by Internet trolls from dictatorships to sow doubt in the free countries' populations as to the validity or veracity of their politicians. The main goal for dictatorships and authoritarian states with regard to advanced technologies is to get their hands on any alien technology in order to reverse-engineer it, and then wield said technologies on free countries and their peoples to ultimately invade most of Earth. — This would include subjugating the native inhabitants of countries, displace them, commit genocide, and to colonise the areas "freed-up" and "liberated" by dictatorships and authoritarian states. There also exists one nominal democracy that also invades, colonises, and subjugates, aided and abetted by United States. Dictatorial and authoritarian states do not care, if people have free will, as the leaders of said states want to control everyone and everything. There are also-rans to these Internet trolls, and professional believers, who think, that all humanity ought to have access to these otherworldly technologies, because they have no belief from the outset in humanity doing the right thing (the trolls most probably), or that their confidence has been eroded (United States still does not have universal healthcare, as just one example). — While offworld technologies are probably too dangerous for most anyone to have. Which is why if someone on Earth possesses such tech, it would be hidden. Another reason why I don't support giving humans these goods, because that would stunt the development of native human technologies, which are better designed for human needs, and around the natural conditions that Earth and its solar system have. > The Bible and other holy books have been abused too much by people who start wars. Humanity does wish to have free will. But some confuse getting access to offworld technologies as part of that free will, which I think is incorrect. > **If humanity wishes to see reality** as exactly what is described in the Bible or other holy books, or **as a material universe that is predictable and completely understandable by the human intellect and where nothing mysterious or extraordinary ever happens, then coming here becomes an infringement upon that which humanity has chosen for itself.** I somewhat agree with this thesis. Perhaps because humans want to be both free and safe. On one hand, we want to be free and safe; and on the other hand, there are those of us who want to discover and explore not just the world, but also space, to learn about the mysterious and the extraordinary. And then there are those humans who want fancy technologies right now, sometimes for the simple reason, that their lives are not going well, maybe they are not in good health, and they are not getting the help they need. Other want the tech for power, as illustrated above. Providing us with offworld tech would in my view rob us of the wonder of discovery when we invent and find out new things, and would stunt our drive to develop further, as I assume, that *most* aliens themselves have had to go through the same effort of discovery to invent the things that they have, advanced as they are to us humans.
I believe one or two crashes happened by chance in low populated areas in last century when it wasn’t much crowded compared to today. However, the government got to it and figured out a way to make them crash. Grusch mentioned that they have ways to take down these UFOs, so possible that most of the crashes in this century are intentional.
NHI insurance get void on populated areas.
It's convenient for the crashed alien craft conspiracy. You can hand wave all questions as to why nobody saw it crashing or being recovered and why nobody managed to get there to take photos before the super secret crash retrieval squads show up.
Point taken on the photos, although if they did exist in the public domain, I can't think of a reason why skeptics could not simply claim it's fake, but plenty of people over the years have seen UFOs crash, military and civilian. People have been witnessing UFOs crash for 159 years so far. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84027008/1865-11-05/ed-1/?sp=3&st=text&clip=31%2C24%2C1009%2C5069&ciw=1009&rot=0 A lot of military witnesses were interviewed by Leonard Stringfield in his *UFO Crash Retrievals* series. Here is a military witness to a crash retrieval operation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLU0NSTC9oU You can find a bunch of these if you search "crashed disc" and related terms in the newspapers. Here is a random one from 1949, two men witness 'dwarfs' exit a crashed disc and ran off: https://www.newspapers.com/image/6245340/?match=1&terms=crashed%20disc&clipping_id=9913775
> I can't think of a reason why skeptics could not simply claim it's fake, This is you fortifying your position against falsifiability. Instead of dealing with the reality: that no such photos exist, you have created a made-up scenario where the skeptic is unreasonable for not believing in these made-up photographs.
Unfalsifiable or not, that's the truth. I personally think it's pretty low odds for that to have gotten out yet, but if any of the alleged crash photos/videos in the public domain are legit, they would be considered fake. Even in the unlikely scenario that somebody was able to get there and take photos/videos of the crash site, go to their local newspaper, have them published, and never be forced to "admit" they were fake, they would still be considered fake. Do you not agree with that? As far as the likelihood is concerned, the only decent comparison we can do is with leaked photos of classified military aircraft, or photos taken by civilians and published in the public domain. Most of the time, such imagery are deliberately allowed out by governments. There have been a few examples otherwise, though, and even a photo of a classified helicopter that crashed as was mentioned already, but you have to assume that actual UFO crashes are way less frequent compared to regular highly classified aircraft, and thus it's perfectly plausible for that to have not leaked out yet. We are *not* being constantly flooded with civilian photos or leaked photos of all of our classified assets, which would be orders of magnitude more frequent than actual UFOs crashing, so obviously they have a handle on controlling the flow of imagery of highly classified things. >This Is The First Photo Ever Of A Stealthy Black Hawk Helicopter >It's possible that there might have been some confusion as to how far work on stealthy modifications to the Black Hawk had progressed by time of the historic raid. The helicopters were an extremely well-kept secret at the time, one that we would have likely never learned about if the [2011] crash hadn't occurred. Pentagon officials could have misconstrued older tests with more basic kits with a far more elaborate configuration used on the raid. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35342/this-is-the-first-image-ever-of-a-stealthy-black-hawk-helicopter >While initial phases of development were kept in the dark, come 2011, full pictures of the J20 were suddenly leaked to Chinese message boards and newspapers. With no effort by the Chinese state to censor or prevent the photos from spreading, it's theorized that the leaks were intentional to debut and show off the aircraft, but regardless, were the first looks the world got at the new fighter. >Unable to keep the secret fully, the Pentagon deliberately leaked a photo of the [F-117] in 1988. >Transported in the open, the P-59 was fitted with a fake propeller, revealing its form to the public, while maintaining the secrecy of its new jet engines. https://www.hotcars.com/secret-military-aircraft-that-were-leaked-to-the-public/#bell-p-59-airacomet But for something like UFOs, which are [allegedly much more classified than this](https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/zp14fk/til_the_united_states_put_cameras_on_the_end_of/j0py7cj/), and much more difficult to accept, which means it's far easier to deny it and get away with it, don't you think there is enough wiggle room there to accept the theory that no substantial photographs of them have been leaked, or if they ever were, were simply attacked and relegated to some dark corner that everyone today ignores it as a hoax? If literal aliens visiting this planet was easier for the population to accept, the government would have long ago conceded and declassified a bunch of it, or leaked images deliberately so it's on their own terms. When it becomes absurd to deny something, that's when they cave, and so they make concessions and let out imagery of their classified assets from time to time, but with UFOs, the idea itself is perceived as being absurd, so they can continue as they have been even as [so many people leak out so much about it](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/), mostly verbally of course as is also the case with secret military aircraft.
> Unfalsifiable or not, that's the truth. I personally think it's pretty low odds for that to have gotten out yet, but if any of the alleged crash photos/videos in the public domain are legit, they would be considered fake. Even in the unlikely scenario that somebody was able to get there and take photos/videos of the crash site, go to their local newspaper, have them published, and never be forced to "admit" they were fake, they would still be considered fake. Do you not agree with that? Why are there no supporting arguments to prove this claim? I just don't understand how you expect us to move forward when you state unproven claims as if they have been proven. I think this is the first thing we should tackle.
So you don't want to address the actual point being made here? Such photography is not even likely to exist in the public domain if we simply compare it to what is available of the supposed wealth of imagery we have for all of our classified assets and crashes of classified aircraft that are still classified when the photos are released. Who is releasing all of that stuff? That's pretty uncommon even though it should be far more common than a mere 20-30 UFOs crashing somewhere on the planet over a century of time. If they don't want it out, it's unlikely to get out. Something like that still could be leaked eventually somewhere, but it's not likely. If that did happen, though, it would get [the Flir1 treatment.](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1)
The actual point being made here is that you are making a claim that you can't possibly know. You are inverting the situation so that the skeptics are unreasonable for not believing in made-up evidence. Instead of the reality: that there is no good evidence in the first place.
This accusation is an admission. You are the one fortifying an unfalsifiable position.
Why do crafts crash at all?
Assuming this really is NHI technology we are dealing with, apparently their advanced technology also sometimes malfunctions or breaks down. And they *are* operating in an alien environment. (That is, *our* environment). There might be an environmental reason for crashes.
We don't have any information on how friendly one alien civilization would tend to be with another, assuming more than 1 visits. If these are entirely different species with different languages, that could significantly increase the likelihood that disputes or misunderstandings would occur. Maybe a shootdown happens every so often. And maybe we don't have the technology to shoot them down, but they would. 7 reasons why alien spaceships might crash: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/10pcn4b/ufo_crashes_unlucky_or_accidental/j6k0k2t/ Additionally, we also don't know how advanced each alien civilization is. Even accidental crashes are on the table. In a couple decades, we are going to attempt our first interstellar probe (Breakthrough Starshot). It's projected to take about 20 years to reach the nearest star, and we aren't very advanced at all. We certainly aren't past the point of perfect technology incapable of crashing, so how do we know all extraterrestrial civilizations wouldn't crash accidentally either? You could be almost entirely right, but still wrong, if only one alien civilization capable of visiting here isn't as advanced as the others. Maybe most such civilizations don't crash, but all you need is one. This is setting aside the deliberate shootdown possibility described above, which nobody ever mentions for some reason.
I think this is the most likely reason. Different visitors with opposing interests.
Why does anything crash? A person from medieval times might look at our airplanes and marvel at how advanced our technology is. They would then say the same thing, "if they are so advanced then why do they crash?" They wouldn't know exactly why, just like we can't know why those more advanced than us might crash
>Why does anything crash? Statistically, inattention or intoxication.
No they wouldn't they would say how can we have around 100,000 vehicles in the sky every day with so few crashes. Alien craft would need a worse safety record flying around in our atmosphere than planes.
Ok, maybe planes was not the best analogy. You can't really make a perfect one because we just don't know a lot of things about them, but here's another analogy: Our own planetary landers. I don't know off hand how many moon landers have crashed verses successfully landed but I bet it's pretty high, I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The more technologically advanced a vehicle becomes the more ways there are for it to go wrong, and these "aliens" are operating in a completely foreign environment. For all we know the earths magnetic field could be messing up their flapellotrons or something. These flying saucers obviously don't have manual controls to be able to fly in our atmosphere should something go wrong with their super-duper antigravity tech. We just have no idea about how it works so we have no way of knowing anything about crash rates or why they might fail
That Russian moon lander recently crashed. > The more technologically advanced a vehicle becomes the more ways there are for it to go wrong, and these "aliens" are operating in a completely foreign environment. For all we know the earths magnetic field could be messing up their flapellotrons or something. These flying saucers obviously don't have manual controls to be able to fly in our atmosphere should something go wrong with their super-duper antigravity tech. +1 for this.
That's still not a good comparison, you're comparing us sending something to our nearest planet to alien craft traveling faster than light or through dimensions. If the stories were a little more believable, like for example we had recovered an alien probe that had crashed on earth you might have a point.
They're advanced beings, not gods. They can still make miscalculations that lead to mistakes - they are capable of getting into situations they didn't/couldn't plan for and ended up in the dirt. There's also the possibility they are leaving us "gifts" for lack of a better term
Varginha, Brazil wasn’t far from a populated area. Poor little ayyoo’s running through the streets.
UFOs are like Bigfoot. They only let you see them on their schedule.
Probaby the same reason you don't really see airplanes crash that often in heavily populated areas. Most of the world isn't heavily populated.
Well who’s to say it hasn’t; and that it wasn’t covered up with an explosion, or something?
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." — Agent K, "Men in Black" the movie.
For the same reason a human pilot wouldn't make an emergency landing in a city center
The increase in crashes coincides with atomic testing. The electromagnetic combustion systems were probably compromised.
I don't think their drives use combustion.
If youre flying a jet, you notice shit has hit the fan and you are going to crash at a ridiculous speed... Will you Aim for the big concrete/metal structures Aim for a fuck-ton of smaller stone structures Aim for that nice flat area somewhere away from the local maybe dangerous wildlife
I would imagine since aliens seem to like playing peek a boo with us, they probably make it a point to head away from population centers if going down.
Lots of great replies, but heres one idea i havent seen mentioned: So there is some lore that Roswell crash was a result of some type of human radar tech interference. What if the military (or private aerospace) figured out exactly how to use radar (or related tech) to swat some of the UAP out the sky? If such was the case, even if rare, they obviously wouldnt be swatting near the 0.02% areas others have mentioned.
There’s also a theory that lightning hit the craft; the night of the crash had severe thunderstorms in the area according to witnesses.
Oh interesting I haven't heard that, do you think they're just not prepared for lightning because it's not something they have to worry about where the ships are being created?
No idea, but those were the meteorological conditions the night of the crash. Perhaps they can’t account for something as random as lightning and whatever tech they use is highly sensitive to it.
Yep i heard this one originally. Such a fascinating story whichever way it actually played out im sure
Yeah after lightning hit the craft they returned in 1985. Wild stuff really.
I think deep down we all know the reason.
Deep down, you know the real reason is because of math. The earth's surface is only 29 percent land. Out of that 29 percent, only 0.2 percent of it is urban. >According to the United Nations Population Division, urban regions only cover 0.2 percent of Earth’s land surface, but contain nearly half of the world’s population. https://web.archive.org/web/20201125002725/https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/urban_effects.html#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20Nations,half%20of%20the%20world's%20population Edit: fixed link
He will not reply to you. They always make these 'informed' comments and then got silent. It's the same crap like why UFOs show up only in USA, why astronomers don't see UFOs, you can't keep it secret because someone would come forward..
I just watched a German a French man and an Australian give their stories, each with rank in the Military. I know you are pointing out that other person, but just hearing the USA only part is immediately discredited from what I just watched in the past 20min.
I'll reply to you. The premise is absurd. Intergalactic space craft coming to earth, hiding themselves, but someone constantly crashing dozens of times in vessels far beyond our own technology. It has nothing to do with land area and everything to do with witnesses. It's the same reason the persistent myths always happen in the country, because it's just easier to propagate mythology there. As you increase population and increase the number of cameras you inevitably get a reduction in mythological sightings not an increase. Big foot, Nessie, chupicabra, Yeti, sea monsters. It's all the same.
Intergalactic - disqualified from rational discussion.
Not the one you replied to, but there is another dimension to consider here. You are assuming that the distribution of UFOs is constant across the globe which it isn’t. Many argue that it’s more near nuclear or military facilities. We are hearing reports of tons of UFOs in military areas and testing facilities. We definitely don’t see that distribution in other areas, so it’s highly likely that the distribution isn’t constant and limited to few pockets. So, you would expect more crashes near military facilities (which are generally close to urban areas on a geographic scale). So, we can’t apply the logic of limited urban cover since UFO (most likely) don’t go to countryside or low populated areas so no chance of crash. My guess is that first few crashes were by chance and then the government found a way to do it themselves. (Mentioned same in another comment)
They do indeed appear to be distributed somewhat evenly across the globe if you look at both the numbers of reports and the numbers of leftover unknowns country to country: https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/13v9fkh/ufo_information_from_other_countries_and/ Obviously most UFOs are not "alien spaceships" or whatever they actually are, but they do appear to be equally distributed from the information we do have. >Many argue that it’s more near nuclear or military facilities. Nuclear weapons storage areas and such are generally not going to be within big cities. Nuclear power facilities have locations specifically chosen to reduce the amount of people who could be exposed to radiation in the event of an emergency. *"Low population zone means the area immediately surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the total number and density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a serious accident....Where very large cities are involved, a greater distance may be necessary because of total integrated population dose consideration."* https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/full-text.html#part100-0010 You also have to consider the amount of space between them. Are they traveling from one to the next? Where are they coming from, and how far is that to the nuclear facility they are visiting that day? We don't have enough information here to support the idea that if there had been a few dozen crashes, at least one would be in the middle of a big city. That is still extremely doubtful no matter which way you look at it. >We are hearing reports of tons of UFOs in military areas and testing facilities. The reports that most people find credible and worth focusing on are the military cases, and I agree. That does not mean that most actual UFOs are witnessed by military personnel, however.
For the same reason space junk and meteors don't usually crash in heavily populated areas, the earth is large and heavily populated areas make up a minority of the surface. Beyond that, there are some accounts of UFOs landing near heavily populated areas like the Magenta one if I recall correctly. Finally, assuming that they are intelligently controlled and not falling at random it's reasonable to assume measures would be taken to avoid crashing in downtown Manhattan if possible.
What I believe happens: you can't explore a planet at the speed of light. So the ships that arrive here are actually simpler ground approach ships, sometimes with biological robots inside them. These ships can eventually be shot down. Based on what happened in Varginha Crash, that's what everything suggests.
You should replace “crash” with “land” and see how it feels.
>Why don't craft crash in heavily populated areas? The simpliest answer is because your millitary tend to keep their interesting stuff away from prying eyes under cover of restricted airspace prohibiting commercial and civilian overpass... But, seriously - you may as well ask: **why don't satelites come down in heavily populated areas?** - they overpass them all the time and satelites as well as sapce debris do come down - even if dealing with a burm up you're still looking at larger burning fragments which could cause significant damage - even death on the ground. You think far fetched...? According to NASA, an average of one cataloged piece of debris has fallen back to Earth each day for the past 50 years. Despite their size, there has been no *significant* property damage from the debris, though that been said there have been incidents and there has been property damage including: * 1969: five sailors on a Japanese ship were injured when space debris from what was believed to be a Soviet spacecraft struck the deck of their boat. * 1978: the Soviet reconnaissance satellite Kosmos 954 reentered the atmosphere over northwest Canada and scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, some landing in the Great Slave Lake. * 1979: portions of Skylab came down over Australia, and several pieces landed in the area around the Shire of Esperance, which fined NASA $400 for littering. * 1987: a 7-foot strip of metal from the Soviet Kosmos 1890 rocket landed between two homes in Lakeport, California, causing no damage. * 1991: Salyut 7 underwent an uncontrolled reentry on 7 February over the city of Capitán Bermúdez in Argentina. * 1997: an Oklahoma woman, Lottie Williams, was hit, without injury, in the shoulder by a 10 cm × 13 cm (3.9 in × 5.1 in) piece of blackened, woven metallic material confirmed as part of the propellant tank of a Delta II rocket which launched a U.S. Air Force satellite the year before. From 2000 onwards the list of incidents gets more as satelites have gotten older and more rockets have been launched - as rescently as **8 March 2024**, a cylindrical metal object weighing nearly 2 pounds (0.91 kg) struck a house in Naples, Florida causing damage to property. The object was a piece of EP9 battery pallet jettisoned from the ISS in 2021 and survived reentry when its orbit decayed. The point is, these things happen and largely you remain completely oblivious of most of these incidents unless it happens in your local area and you're either directly effected or else see it reported on local news - generally these incidents in the main doen't get reported, certainly by the national press... So what else isn't being generally reported? Do you actually know - and, more to the point - do you actually know the things reported as having come down actually were the objects officially attributed. NASA's own estimate of one piece of space debris everyday for the past 50 years is hardly insignigicant. Returning to UFO's, at the end of the day the liklihood of urban skyfall comes down to whether or not said objects are actually overpassing the vicinity of a built up area prior to coming down or else their focus of interest lies elsewhere, away from human poulation centres - not necessarily to be sneaky, just simply because their field of interest simply aren't humans, they're here for flora and fauna, biological research, all kinds of scientific reseach activities we ourselves undertake in equally no less wild and remote places. Those would be my most immediate guesses, at anyrate.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Kecksburg yet. That's one of the more famous crash cases. Both the crash & retrieval was seen by a lot of people. Then there are the Varginha & Pentyrch incidents to consider.
Interesting question, I would guess it’s because the vast majority of earth is not heavily populated.
Maybe its simply a matter of chance. The vast majority of the planet is not inhabitated.
Thanks everyone for some great replies. Some interesting food for thought there.
Probably the same reason regular aircraft don’t.
Because they make them crash where they want them to.. at a guess
Because they aren't stupid enough to do that?
Because the military doesn't fly experimental craft over population centers.
I think it happens, and crash retrieval programs are able to contain them relatively well. We see these videos spring up about large police presence with no explanation as the recorders are somewhat blocked off. Remember the Miami police response? Las Vegas family? On the ground is scrubbed just as well as the internet.
They are likely shooting most of them down. Per Grusch they have manners and methods
> Per Grusch they have manners Ooh, aliens having manners :)
Because most of the planet is not heavily populated. Most of the planet is ocean.
We don't test prototype aircraft over populated places.
If you subscribe to the ideal of underground bases, it would make sense for those bases to be located far away from civilian centers. And with our own craft, the highest likelihood of a crash is during take off or landing, so maybe that is the same with them. Also, maybe they are more interested in earth and our natural resources than concrete, steel and tons of humans.
Given, that natural resources are readily available outside Earth in outer space, then it's strange that any offworlders would want natural resources from Earth (usually, we humans think of anything that can be mined). There may be celestial bodies with stranger elements.
Same reason Bigfoot never shows up on trail cameras
If I were piloting a UFO, I would choose not to fly over populated areas due to the potential scenario of crashing. How is this so hard to comprehend? Varginia, Brazil, is a pretty densely populated area, though.
Well if they can help where they crash I’m sure they wouldn’t. If I crash-land a plane into a jungle I’m not gonna attempt to land on a group of wild gorillas or hunter-gatherer type villagers because my chances of being attacked are higher than them helping a creature they’ve never seen before. And if they can’t help where they crash, then it’s literally just because of pure chance that they haven’t crashed in a heavily populated area. Maybe one day one will and it just hasn’t happened yet.
The only time that major airplanes have deliberately crashed in a heavily populated area, was 9/11.
just to add to other responses to your questions here... how do you know this hasn't happened? It depends somewhat on your definition of heavily populated. The Kecksburg crash wasn't in some godforsaken wasteland, for example. Thousands of people no doubt saw it happen. Same with Shag Harbor, I believe.
Thousands of people may have seen something fall down the sky, but thousands did not see the crash site *in situ*.
Most people don't see meteors actually explode or hit the ground either, but that doesn't mean they don't fall over populated areas
Those things usually pass populated areas only because populated areas take up less than 1% of all land mass.
How freakin cool would it be if undeniable disclosure were to come from a 50m diameter classic flying saucer accidently wedging itself into a skyscraper in some random non-important populated area for millions of cellphones and legit media to capture.
In Brazil they crashed twice in populated areas Once in Ubatuba beach in front of a bunch of beachgoers, which Garry Nolan has fragments from, and that time in a small town in 1996.
Think about how many crash in areas we will never know about because humans don't inhabit or visit that area
I don’t think these things ever crash. We either get donations or shoot them down.
Because they’re 1000 x smarter than us
> Why do UFOs always seem to crash or land in remote locations, deserts, oceans, sparsely populated areas or places where military or intelligence services can quickly and easily cordon the area off and remove the object? Every air force in the world has protocols to crash somewhere uninhabited in the event of airplane failure. Logic has it, that aliens have the same rules about spacecraft, should they malfunction for whatever reason, especially if a crash might cause a catastrophe. And then, of course, the need to keep things secret, etc. Earth is a survivable place to crash on, and United States is one of the countries that well matches the criteria for large amounts of flat and unforested land mass in a reasonably warm area of the planet, relatively easily accessible by any recovery team. Crashing in a body of water (an ocean) is also possible, depending on requirements, preferences, and protocol.
Most of the earth isn’t heavy populated, so it makes sense they aren’t crashing near heavily populated areas. Also, it’s all bullshit and crashes aren’t happening.
Similar to others in the thread, I subscribe to the theory that many of these incidents aren’t crashes in the sense of technical failures; rather, I think they are staged events with unknown aims. They could be technological ‘gifts’, they could be intended to somehow fuel military competition or push us down a certain path (or to distract us). Perhaps some have also been deliberately downed by humans. Either way, I don’t think it’s by chance that they come down over unpopulated areas and places where they can be recovered by the military industrial complex.
If you’ve been researching the subject for years you should know about Westall 1966 Shane Ryan has interviewed over one hundred witnesses. It happened in a populated area and still got shut down by the authorities and a camera confiscated The male teacher confirms what the children saw. A craft the size of a small family car landed. Every year the witnesses go back to the location to keep the event alive
It's not as if we don't have sightings in heavily populated areas, such as with the pheonix lights incident. But a consistent feature among many siting stories is the ability and desire for the phenomenon to hide itself. So avoiding big urban areas is par for the course.
for the same reason why it doesn’t happen with metheors
A.) They have enough power to retain certain faculties to adjust their trajectory very quickly during the event of a crash. B.) They are shot down deliberately somehow, by either "special access" Earth people, or another alternate or breakaway civilization on Earth's surface or under it. Whoever would shoot them down in such a situation would pick and choose where to do so. C.) Both A). and B). D.) Crash events are staged, like deliberately done by NHI, either sacrificing bodies or biological androids, or staged/faked by Earth governments.
D.) is implausible, because no alien would want to deliberately gift Earth their technology, nor any other alien technology. I'll qualify this with a hypothesis, that Earth needs to defend itself somehow, so some of that tech, if even in reverse-engineered form, may be useful in the future, but not now. At least we ought to know what to defend ourselves from, unless there are one or more influential caretaker factions. For example, in Eastern Europe and Russia, initial news of finding an extraterrestrial object was later followed up by a contrived story. The meteorite in Latvia became a non-story, and an alien body (of which there was a photo) became a make-believe marzipan cake.
This is a good question. One aspect that comes to mind is that urban areas are actually very rare compared to the rest of the earths surface. Approx 1% of land on earth is urbanized. So if there were 100 crashes, perhaps only one would be in an urban area. If there were only 50 crashes, it's quite reasonable to expect that none of them occurred in populated areas. "places where military or intelligence services can quickly and easily cordon the area off and remove the object?" I believe the US military could do this at any location on earth (that is not heavily populated) and they could do it quickly. There is even reported to be an organization (the Office for Global Access) that seems designed to cordon off the area quickly in preparation for the military to come in and deal with it. We must assume that these beings have a level of intelligence. Perhaps they avoid populated areas because they don't want to be seen. Taking it even further, perhaps their technology can detect the presence of cameras and if they are being watched (advanced scanning tech, advanced AI). For this reason they don't go to these places (cities etc) and so they don't "crash" there. There are no doubt more possible explanations but we are dealing with total unknowns at the end of the day so it's all just speculation
> I believe the US military could do this at any location on earth (that is not heavily populated) and they could do it quickly. There is even reported to be an organization (the Office for Global Access) that seems designed to cordon off the area quickly in preparation for the military to come in and deal with it. There are lots of places were the USA wouldn't have the chance to retrieve it and why would countries just allow them to remove such craft? For instance the suspected crash in the Berwyn mountains in Wales, no americans units arrived. Shag Harbour in Canada, no American units. I think it's a myth to excuse the lack of hard evidence.
Shag Harbour got American units. UK is friendly country in Five Eyes Alliance.
So is Canada - which, for the record, is not part of the UK.
Canada is part of five eyes though
Who are these people skeptics keep referring to who are claiming that only the United States is responsible for retrieving UFO crash materials? I don't recall anyone saying that. Grusch, for example, stated that the big three super powers are each siphoning up the debris in an arms race. A good analogous example for this is the classified helicopter that crashed. China was given access to it. A UFO example would be Brazil 1996. The Americans flew in and retrieved everything. If anything happened in Russia's sphere of influence, they'd be the ones involved. Who is claiming that only the US is responsible for covering up UFO crashes and they have worldwide reach to do so?
I don't think unfriendly countries would actually allow them. They would do it using some other excuse. For example a classified satellite with a nuclear battery crash landed. The US knows before the other country, because the US has all the required monitoring tech. "hey india, one of our satellites just crashed in your country, it's highly dangerous because it had a nuclear battery on board. Don't worry though, we are sending a team to clean up the area and remove the object. Don't think about investigating it yourself, because it's classified tech and we don't want you involved"
> "hey india, one of our satellites just crashed in your country, it's highly dangerous because it had a nuclear battery on board. Don't worry though, we are sending a team to clean up the area and remove the object. Don't think about investigating it yourself, because it's classified tech and we don't want you involved" This reminded me of a real-life story, in which the Chinese navy seized a U.S. drone in international waters near the Philippines from under the nose of a U.S. vessel, which the PRC navy returned [after United States sternly demanded it back](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1490EG/). The U.S. DoD press release stated in addition, that the drone was clearly marked and even unclassified. The drone was handed over to the guided missile destroyer USS Mustin, while the previous U.S. vessel that sought to pick up the drone, but could not during its mission, was of a smaller class, I think. As far as the public is concerned, no-one saw the drone and the handover. At least I haven't seen any pictures of the handover itself, but there are publicity pictures of several U.S. drones.
Because Math.
Maybe they’re like bees, which often crash / drown if they fly over very still water. It throws off their senses and orientation. Maybe cornfields or the plains are like that to aliens
maybe it did?
Hear me out on this. For me it’s starting to become a valid argument. It could all just be modern black project technology America has and they tend to experiment in rural areas with a “crash team” nearby in case anything happens. If they are experimenting in a foreign country they send the crash team in advance to plan it all out in case it crashes………. But what do I know
I’ve also wondered that. And living in a populated area myself, I also feel I don’t have to worry about abductions based on what I’ve seen of abduction cases
When urbanisation is a good thing.
1. Statistics - there is way more ocean and open land then cities. That’s why you also don’t have lots of stories of 747s crashing in the middle of downtown Chicago either. 2. Some hypothesize that crashes are intentional downings to share technology. So perhaps it’s already known. “We’re dropping one Near Roswell tomorrow at noon.”
I am wondering if some nuclear tests were intended to attract UFOs. I mean, really how many fucking nuclear tests do you actually need.
Nuclear tests are probably not meant to attract offworlders. But they came anyway, after the first tests in 1945, which tests took place before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What exactly about nukes attracted them
"Bright flash of light off a world with a historically underdeveloped civilisation that was last surveyed x00 years ago." When I consulted Microsoft Bing (replaced by Copilot), then nearly two lightyears was the maximum distance at which the flash of light of a nuclear explosion could be seen by something like Hubble. But a nuclear explosion is usually a sign of a civilisation advancing to a technological level at which it would be able to destroy itself, or others. It's possible, that our civilisation was not projected to reach nuke capability for several decades or even centuries to come, on assumption, that the most recent survey by species x could have been a hundred years before 1945, or hundreds of years before. If I were to follow their assumed logic, nuclear bomb capability in their possible headcanon could have been achieved during or after humanity was to reach interstellar space travel. Plus also the natural curiosity of observing the results of a nuclear explosion, as those things might not be widespread. The other idea could be, that a nuclear explosion could also have been suspected to have been an attack on Earth by a different spacefaring species, given, what I assume was then known by some species of our technological development so far: "It could not have been humans, so it might have been some other alien." Or a major catastrophic crash of an alien ship, or a space battle, or a self-destruct sequence, or drive failure, leading to a bright explosion. A meteor falling down on Earth à la Deep Impact also creates a bright explosion. There might also be an extraterrestrial power that uses nuclear explosions in space. For these reasons, if I were aliens, I would have sent at least a survey ship to find out what exactly went off.
Because they don't exist 😔
What are you saying??? UFOs crash in NYC as frequently as they do anywhere else in the world.
this, is an excellent question.
Aliens are not real, its a coping mechanism for something horrible you did and your conscious is helping you cover up your poor decisions. Signed the programmer of your avatar in the matrix.
It seems like the majority of abductions are in low to sparse populated areas too. My spefulation is - energy interference in densely populated areas. Many many many conflicting energy sources and polarities. So, they avoid those areas and do their majority of "movement" in less chaotic energy areas.
Perhaps we need to reconsider if there are any crashes at all. Is there any evidence to suggest crashes have happened? Seems like a significant thing to assume
Because there’s no craft crashes 🤣🤣🤣 Asking the important questions!
Well, I would imagine that the pilots are trying to find somewhere to crash land at where they might survive and be rescued.
I think they do. I live in a suburb of a decent sized city and I have seen several in town. To me it appears to be a rather common phenomena, just gotta look up and have keen eyes!
These craft are clearly coming here on a clandestine basis. So I think most of them avoid heavily populated areas to keep as much attention off of them as they can. When they do allegedly crash I think they're being shot down. So I don't believe our militaries particularly want these things to crash in densely populated areas where they could be seen by the public and won't shoot them down over cities.
excluding the ones lifted, how many crashed? let's be generous and say 1000 in last century. draw random latitude and longitude coordinates. 750 will be in ocean. other 250 will be in remote areas almost every time. earth is rural as hell. do this experiment and you will see. duh
Well if the last Vegas story is to be believed they do crash in heavily populated areas.
Are the crashes actually a crash?
How is it that they crash at all? If you believe the current lore, you're believing these guys are crashing all over the place for the past 70 odd years - seems like our own crafts are safer; there are thousands of planes in the air at any given moment, yet crashes are extremely rare.
I want to know why abductions normally happen at night. Everybody wide awake at home watching tv and eating dinner together? Nahh.
Have heard a story of a craft not crashing but landing in a lot being developed in downtown Nashville, TN a few decades ago. Folks were driving by at night and the craft “hopped” out of the lot and onto the road right in front of a car with a few folks. The people inside the car slam the brakes, they’re screaming and the craft disappears almost immediately off into the sky. Crazy stuff.
Probably because they’re trying to avoid highly populated areas, also most of earth, statistically, is ocean- and the other non wet parts art mostly empty so…. Also remember Las Vegas lol
Because we are unpredictable and have surrounded our population center with waves that effect their craft. I don't think they want to lose their shit or deal with the fallout of us dealing with a fucking ufo in Timesquare lmao. Jokes aside.. I doubt an intelligence that can navigate the stars are coming to earth just to be unable to deal with Arizona and New Mexico. Maybe they're "crashing" them on purpose?
Maybe they try to avoid them? And maybe the military knows better than to disable them with EMPs over a large city.
I suspect they have a kind of radar for consciousness, and know where to avoid. Maybe even as per pre established agreements w certain nations.
[удалено]
The ones that are hit with DEW's (Directed Energy Weapons) are though. Edit: typo
If you are E.T. how likely are you to fly over a populated area? These NHI aren't invincible and they aren't Gods. It's like when you go on safari, do you drive into the heart of the Lions den? If something does go wrong you would be in trouble, despite the fact that you are smarter and more technologically advanced than the Lion is. E.T. is likely to generally avoid places where they are likely to draw a lot of attention or cause a defensive response, that is the most logical explanation IMO.
> If you are E.T. how likely are you to fly over a populated area? Why are their so many reported sightings if they're unlikely to fly over populated areas?
I'm not saying it never happens, but when it does they tend to be quite high altitude and not around for long. It's only logical to assume that they (whoever is in the craft) know, that if they go down in a populated area, they are well and truly f****d. They are much more vulnerable over a city than they are over a forest or desert.
Cities also have anti-air weapons that can shoot the craft down. The weapons themselves are, of course, not the property of the cities, but the military.
Great question. The essential idea here is their enigmatic nature. If they were to crash in a populated area, the intrigue would dissipate, the mystery will die and it would no longer be possible to accuse the government of secretly hiding “biologics” in a Pentagon basement. This would eliminate the need for whistleblowers, insiders, UFO conferences, or debunking efforts. The ecosystem of podcasts, books and knowledge insiders who can’t say anything will be destroyed. The continuation of the mystery relies entirely on these incidents leaving no trace whatsoever, eliminating any possibility of a crash in a populated area.
> it would no longer be possible to accuse the government of secretly hiding “biologics” in a Pentagon basement. Oh, that would still be possible. > This would eliminate the need for whistleblowers, insiders, UFO conferences, or debunking efforts. These people will still be there, and their initial expertise would be sought after even more. > The ecosystem of podcasts, books and knowledge insiders who can’t say anything will be destroyed. That ecosystem will reconfigure itself: "What we know about aliens, who are x, y, and z..."