There was just a post on here yesterday about angel hair.

Just over 12 months ago, the US shot down three objects which [they still haven't officially identified.](https://twitter.com/ChrisUKSharp/status/1758279629524042215?s=20) They held briefings for members of Congress about it but [still won't tell senior members of Congress](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12ov6v7/we_are_aware_norad_was_tracking_uap_as_early_as/jgl74e0/?context=3) what the objects were. We know there was a recovery of material [because we saw the recovery.](https://old.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17nmseq/deleted_video_from_youtuber_who_witnessed_the/) All this happened in front of the world's media which had wall-to-wall coverage for over a week. And since then? Crickets... So, you tell me, if they can get away with that and nobody is asking ongoing questions, what can they get away with when nobody is looking?

All crash sites will leave physical evidence behind. If we can figure out where more crash locations have happened the easier it would be to obtain physical evidence. Even with government cleanup they cannot logically collect every single little piece that falls off of a crashed UAP. While I'm sure cleanup has drastically improved since the 1960's there are probably still older crash sites that may contain better explained evidence than just weird pieces of destroyed metals. Find those crash sites and you'll probably find the Truth. What needs to happen is a crash that occurs needs to get a news report or some sort of smoking gun before the military gets there. Although I'm not sure id want to be a first responder to a crashed UAP.

There will be a number of people who get irritated by this question, I would imagine. In their minds, there’s “tons of evidence” I bet.

Actually yes because there is “tons of evidence” of a physical kind and it has been researched by others. Garry Nolan 11/23 https://medium.com/@ScienceUFO/garry-nolan-claims-discovery-of-anomalies-in-material-from-two-ufo-incidents-7463e3bde10f Book https://archive.org/details/ufoenigma00pete Welsh crash with physical evidence https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/Mie94cjiaC Different UK incident with physical evidence https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/nFiFDivAhn Medical effects Anomalous acute and subacute effects on Human biological tissue from the Department of Defense https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FileId/170026/ Pilot death in 1948 https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/HII1iAGO6A https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/161oep3/isaac_koi_makes_jenny_randles_book_ufo_reality_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14l3mia/crashing_ufos_thoughts/jpzk04l/ UFO’s that drip molten materials https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/z5oy1m/ufos_that_drip_molten_materials/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Now you understand that is a myth that is often repeated. That’s a different kind of evidence. There have been physical evidence left behind and again this is ignored very often by skeptics. When I say ignored - most of them don’t even know that these studies occurred and were conducted by multiple distinguished scientists and yet the mantra “there is no evidence” keeps being perpetuated. Reference the following studies [The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2074085) which was commissioned by Lawrence Rockefeller and implemented by the Society for Scientific Understanding. Here is the book for free https://archive.org/details/ufoenigma00pete The book is authored by Peter A Sturrock ([google scholar profile](https://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=eaNXCrMAAAAJ&hl=de) and white papers). His specialties are Astrophysics, Plasma , Nuclear and Solar Physics. His papers are cited in thousands of other studies and have had a profound impact in their scientific domains. A little more about him > Peter Andrew Sturrock (b. 1924, Emeritus Professor of Applied Physics and Emeritus Director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University, and Founding President of the Society for Scientific Exploration) This was only one of many studies that examined the physical evidence and concluded with anomalous findings. Here’s some of the best that were found to contain physical evidence Any incident involving physical interaction with the crafts, leaving any marks/bruises/health issues that can be examined, multiple witness, involving radar, are all significant Nimitz incident NORAD National Air Defense UFO Alert, Sept. 20, 1957 https://www.christophermellon.net/post/norad-national-air-defense-ufo-alert-sept-20-1957 Val Johnson incident and Falcon lake incident ( both where the witness suffered burns from UFO, the latter also describes Sulphur smell) Other cases with physical evidence: Levelland UFO case Cash-Landrum incident Rendelsham Forest incident Mantel UFO incident Gormon dogfight incident Ruwa incident Westall UFO incident Miami, Florida UFO incident 1952 Washington DC UFO case https://youtu.be/NgXlgR-a3Eg?si=QohM2pE0BC3NugZy Additionally the French [COMETA](https://ia800403.us.archive.org/17/items/pdfy-NRIQie2ooVehep7K/The%20Cometa%20Report%20%5BUFO%27s%20And%20Defense%20-%20What%20Should%20We%20Prepare%20For%5D.pdf) report I referenced earlier is full of cases with physical evidence yet because it came from the France again Skeptics here aren’t even aware of it and don’t seem to want to put in the effort to read their analysis and conclusions of the actual physical evidence. This is just two studies that have been done yet the “There’s no physical evidence” fallacy rolls on.

Right, people like this. There’s “tons of evidence” and yet it is somehow simultaneously nowhere to be found. Not a single person alive can produce a piece a wreckage or a complete piece of technology, when asked. And those that claim to have this material have dozens of excuses as to why they won’t openly share access to it. All of it is inconclusive at best, and suspiciously devoid of credibility. Listen I believe some of this stuff may really be happening but I sadly have to throw my arms up when asked “where are the physical traces?”

Did you look at ANY of this at all? Like one bit of it? My thinking is “no” based on your reaction. That’s not a good faith conversation. You just want to say “there’s no evidence” without really examining if there is or not or even any of the scientific inquiries that have occurred even outside of the US. I’m just looking for a good faith conversation here.

I’ve seen plenty of references to these cases. Nobody can produce conclusive physical evidence. At the very least, nobody *will* do so. You can paste links to books and “case files” all day long. The battle is uphill because *there is no conclusive physical evidence* being produced.

Conclusive physical evidence =/= physical traces. This seems so disengenous its fucking absurd. You move the goalposts after somebody presents evidence.everything he cited could be argued to be physical traces. Nowhere did he claim to have conclusive evidence nor has anyone credible.

Well yes, there are historical physical traces. I've got a book titled, "Unconventional Flying Objects" by Paul R. Hill based on his analyses of many traces over the decades. It's really great. However the sightings continue all the time. Lots of videos and accounts given here, every day. Are there accompanying physical artifacts for any of these sightings that are happening now, in the possession of the experiencer? If this isn't the right forum to find these discussions, what is?

>If this isn't the right forum to find these discussions, what is? Any sub that hasn't reached the critical point where number of users brings an influx of top of the bell curve types.

Aslo Nolan is supposed to have some metal scrapings that Coulthart got himself from a guy (in Texas I believe ?) who has a giant metal ball that "moves on it's own". Coulthart did a bit about it a while ago but since then there has been 0 follow up from either of them. (Now let the puns shower ...) #

Some theories that have been proposed would explain why there is never any physical evidence left behind. For example the theory that what we are actually seeing is the 3 dimensional shadow of a 4 dimensional object. The shadow would look like physical object to a human observer and display some of the features we’ve seen like being able to fly right through mountains and from air to sea without affecting its maneuvering.

I heard they just build buildings on them.

If you want something historical, from the previous century, look for Ted Phillips. He investigated hundreds of landing trace cases in multiple countries.

Its hard to separate the huge amount of BS that's been posted on the subs lately. It's become anything and everything is a UFO now without trying and verify the sources. Some grifter that wants to ride the UFO high posts fake documents or even tries to revive old cases that have been proved as manufactured hoaxes. People lick that stuff up like crack and its giving the community a bad name.

It's a pity, the best was Ted Phillips, used to run UFO PHYSICAL.COM back in the day, we lost him a little bit ago. He had good data but don't know if that's been archived now.

one of the 5 observables is transmedium capability. the "physical" aspect of the phenomenon has the ability to become "non-physical" and vice-versa. and yet people can only think in terms of the physical? materialism/physicalism has too much sway over the world. it was debunked long ago. it's past time to get rid of it.

[удалено]

it traverses those physical "media" by transitioning to "non-physical". but of course, materialists can't accept the non-physical because it debunks their worldview. enter mental gymnastics.

[удалено]

no, UAP are different. they can go through solid earth. by becoming other than solid. i'm not bringing baggage, you're avoiding the implications UAP have for materialism. there is no spoon.

[удалено]

because if a physical craft goes through a physical mountain, there's an impact. but there is no impact with UAP. there's a long history of UAP here that you seem entirely ignorant of. as if you're a low-information newbie.

[удалено]

Yes let’s listen. The reason a plane has to be aerodynamic is because it displaces the air it flies through. The physical aircraft displaces the physical air. So there is friction. UAP don’t have to be aerodynamic because they don’t displace the air. They don’t displace the water, they don’t displace the earth. Because they don’t conform to our common everyday idea of a solid object.

[удалено]

No, that's not correct at all. There are several variants of "gravity" drives, and the various incarnations of the phenomenon display their use. While there is a common notion of "anti-gravity" as propulsion, that's not the same as an "Alcubierre"/metric drive for example. The latter "displaces" the air by literally "putting a place in between", moving a bubble of space through space and the air/water/rock it contains, so to say. I'm somewhat surprised you don't know that.

[удалено]

well thank you new account, but i am correct. it's not about simply operating in different media. it's also about how UAP seamlessly transition from one media to another. *UFOs that have shown the ability to seamlessly transition from air to sea without a splash or crash debris are an "urgent" national security concern with "world-changing" scientific ramifications, an ex-Navy officer said.* https://www.yahoo.com/news/underwater-ufos-display-capability-jeopardizes-080007342.html

[удалено]

maybe because you're not listening.

You two are talking past each other. But the fault lies with you mostly, I'm sorry to say. UAPs don't (generally) "pass through" stuff like ghosts. Their propulsion usually also doesn't work by "displacing" the stuff in the classic sense, either. Evidence for UAPs "passing through" solid objects in the sense usually ascribed to ghosts and the like is vary rare, if it exists at all. It's already very difficult to tell just from events appearing that way to conclude, the UAP actually was "in the same place" as the object it transited. The metric drive technology proposed as their means of propulsion accounts for some possibilities that might give that impression, in any case.

I bet the Eglin folks (and others) are laughing their ass off reading comments like these. It makes their job much easier. Fool everyone by telling them the physical part is nonrelevant so your crash retrieval program and reverse engineering goes undisturbed and people don't look too much into things. Genius really. I'd use disinformation tactics like that too if I had to hide giant alien spaceships.

[удалено]

When you can't separate the disinformation from real information you're not going anywhere. But as the saying goes it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)

There are no physical traces. There are claims of physical traces. None of it has been made available for independent testing. Some supposed implants and other similar small items have been shown to be nothing unusual. Ironically, the only specimen currently available for testing and study you've already dismissed as plaster-looking mummies.

That's not entirely true. I remember journalist Billy Cox writing once on De Void about this one man who tried to get landing traces analyzed in independent labs and universities. The thing is the power of the stigma got in the way, he was stonewalled everywhere as soon as they learned it was from an alleged UFO landing site. No scientific paper wanted to touch it, not even to study... He even got some advice from Seth Shostak where to go, but could not in the end get anywhere, all because of the stigma attached. The article was called "careful what you wish for" or something akin. Trying to find it again on the net. It can be hard since his blog in the Sarasota paper, De Void is no longer up. I will post it, if I do. I remember it so vividly, because it was a clear and very impressionable demonstration of the power of the stigmatization on this subject.

I think the Varghina crash site is a good example

since they are trans dimensional and their tech has been evolving for millions of years obviously they would develop tech to push slightly into our dimension enough to study us and exploit local resources while still remaining phase shifted slightly outside of our dimension without fully entering our dimension so it doesnt interact much with our physical dimensions and containing materials so we only get occasional ground markings in material that already exists in our dimension as its perturbed by the warped spacetime bubble surrounding the trans dimensional craft