Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Unexplained
usetobunkin
Posts: 2,366
- 17 July 1955 — At noon on King Harold's Way in Bexleyheath in the London Borough of Bexley a 30-foot-wide saucer-shaped object was seen to hover a few feet above a street in broad daylight by Margaret Fry[34] and her doctor on a very hot cloudless day. Car engines nearby to the object stalled. It was seen by around thirty people and made a humming noise and landed at the junction of Ashbourne Road and Whitfield Road. It hovered over Bedonwell Primary School (now Bedonwell Junior School) for around one minute. It finally shot off into the sky. Another UFO had landed a few streets away at the same time. A similar object had been seen in Bexleyheath in 1952.[35][36][37]
With soon to be released US Dept of Defence releasing all their UFO/UAP files, I thought I would put this up. I did wonder if any of our senior members remember any details from the time.
3
Comments
-
No photos or videos, so sadly no evidence.usetobunkin said:- 17 July 1955 — At noon on King Harold's Way in Bexleyheath in the London Borough of Bexley a 30-foot-wide saucer-shaped object was seen to hover a few feet above a street in broad daylight by Margaret Fry[34] and her doctor on a very hot cloudless day. Car engines nearby to the object stalled. It was seen by around thirty people and made a humming noise and landed at the junction of Ashbourne Road and Whitfield Road. It hovered over Bedonwell Primary School (now Bedonwell Junior School) for around one minute. It finally shot off into the sky. Another UFO had landed a few streets away at the same time. A similar object had been seen in Bexleyheath in 1952.[35][36][37]
With soon to be released US Dept of Defence releasing all their UFO/UAP files, I thought I would put this up. I did wonder if any of our senior members remember any details from the time.
0 -
It came from the future with the ball from Nicky Bailey's penalty.17
-
Assume they cane to earth looking for intelligent life, landed in Bexleyheath and decided to never come back!25
-
Eye-witness testimony is still "evidence".Dazzler21 said:
No photos or videos, so sadly no evidence.usetobunkin said:- 17 July 1955 — At noon on King Harold's Way in Bexleyheath in the London Borough of Bexley a 30-foot-wide saucer-shaped object was seen to hover a few feet above a street in broad daylight by Margaret Fry[34] and her doctor on a very hot cloudless day. Car engines nearby to the object stalled. It was seen by around thirty people and made a humming noise and landed at the junction of Ashbourne Road and Whitfield Road. It hovered over Bedonwell Primary School (now Bedonwell Junior School) for around one minute. It finally shot off into the sky. Another UFO had landed a few streets away at the same time. A similar object had been seen in Bexleyheath in 1952.[35][36][37]
With soon to be released US Dept of Defence releasing all their UFO/UAP files, I thought I would put this up. I did wonder if any of our senior members remember any details from the time.
0 -
It's such a shame that the number of UFO sightings plummeted just around the time smartphones became ubiquitous, isn't it? Sad coincidence - I can't help thinking we'd have had a lot of real evidence if it wasn't for that unexplained drop-off in events...18
-
Nice big junction that at Ashbourne and Whitfield Road. Obvious site to land a 30ft wide saucer, except there is a weight limit in force according to the signs so you'd get a ticket if unlucky and appear on several doorcams
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4753375,0.1366489,3a,75y,265.88h,70.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL85k7C2Nad4CpLRTiSTxog!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=19.403658249648927&panoid=L85k7C2Nad4CpLRTiSTxog&yaw=265.8810763667159!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDIxOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==0 -
swords_alive said:Nice big junction that at Ashbourne and Whitfield Road. Obvious site to land a 30ft wide saucer, except there is a weight limit in force according to the signs so you'd get a ticket if unlucky and appear on several doorcams
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4753375,0.1366489,3a,75y,265.88h,70.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL85k7C2Nad4CpLRTiSTxog!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=19.403658249648927&panoid=L85k7C2Nad4CpLRTiSTxog&yaw=265.8810763667159!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDIxOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
*Translated from the language (assuming there is one) of Alpha Centauri*
"Here it is, Tharg. Bexleyheath, Earth. Check out that ad ... houses for £375 Earth pounds."
"You stupid Moonling. This is from 20 Earth years ago. Fire up the Chronometron and take us back to that time."
"OK, Tharg. Fuck me, Charlton Athletic are riding high in Division 1."
"Damn. That can't be right. Whack the Chronometron with your third hand. That should fix it."2 -
as is hearsay..Off_it said:u
Eye-witness testimony is still "evidence".Dazzler21 said:
No photos or videos, so sadly no evidence.usetobunkin said:- 17 July 1955 — At noon on King Harold's Way in Bexleyheath in the London Borough of Bexley a 30-foot-wide saucer-shaped object was seen to hover a few feet above a street in broad daylight by Margaret Fry[34] and her doctor on a very hot cloudless day. Car engines nearby to the object stalled. It was seen by around thirty people and made a humming noise and landed at the junction of Ashbourne Road and Whitfield Road. It hovered over Bedonwell Primary School (now Bedonwell Junior School) for around one minute. It finally shot off into the sky. Another UFO had landed a few streets away at the same time. A similar object had been seen in Bexleyheath in 1952.[35][36][37]
With soon to be released US Dept of Defence releasing all their UFO/UAP files, I thought I would put this up. I did wonder if any of our senior members remember any details from the time.
0 -
1 -
It's pure and simple.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.1 -
Looks realistic to me.
(It was probably a teenage Clive Sinclair trying out a prototype robot lawnmower or something.)
3 -
Why is it that almost every so-called witness to UFO landings is some moonshine-soaked redneck with 6 fingers and webbed feet?2
-
Yeah - but this one was in Bexleyheath…….oh.Rizzo said:Why is it that almost every so-called witness to UFO landings is some moonshine-soaked redneck with 6 fingers and webbed feet?5 -
Way too simplistic. You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.MuttleyCAFC said:Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.
Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.
Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.
Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?2 -
What might a wider definition of life include then? 'Cos the only additional thing I can think of is things that aren't living.Dave Rudd said:
Way too simplistic. You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.MuttleyCAFC said:Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.
Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.
Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.
Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?0 -
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.0
-
12
-
"Thornton Heath, the final frontier"Rizzo said:It's life Jim, but not as we know it.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
1
-
Stig said:
What might a wider definition of life include then? 'Cos the only additional thing I can think of is things that aren't living.Dave Rudd said:
Way too simplistic. You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.MuttleyCAFC said:Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.
Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.
Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.
Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?
Oh, where to start?
Maybe read up on Nealson & Conrad (1999), although you'll need an account at The Royal Society.
Here's an abstract:
Molecular methods of taxonomy and phylogeny have changed the way in which life on earth is viewed; they have allowed us to transition from a eukaryote-centric (five-kingdoms) view of the planet to one that is peculiarly prokaryote-centric, containing three kingdoms, two of which are prokaryotic unicells. These prokaryotes are distinguished from their eukaryotic counterparts by their toughness, tenacity and metabolic diversity. Realization of these features has, in many ways, changed the way we feel about life on earth, about the nature of life past and about the possibility of finding life elsewhere. In essence, the limits of life on this planet have expanded to such a degree that our thoughts of both past and future life have been altered. The abilities of prokaryotes to withstand many extreme conditions has led to the term extremophiles, used to describe the organisms that thrive under conditions thought just a few years ago, to be inconsistent with life. Perhaps the most extensive adaptation to extreme conditions, however, is represented by the ability of many bacteria to survive nutrient conditions not compatible with eukaryotic life. Prokaryotes have evolved to use nearly every redox couple that is in abundance on earth, filling the metabolic niches left behind by the oxygen-using, carbon-eating eukaryotes. This metabolic plasticity leads to a common feature in physically stratified environments of layered microbial communities, chemical indicators of the metabolic diversity of the prokaryotes. Such 'metabolic extremophily' forms a backdrop by which we can view the energy flow of life on this planet, think about what the evolutionary past of the planet might have been, and plan ways to look for life elsewhere, using the knowledge of energy flow on earth.
Then take a look at the Fermi Paradox and we can go from there.
I fancy a 1-1 draw at The Hawthorns.4 -
Not sure the Bexleyheath slander on this thread should go unpunished. I’ve noted down the perpetrators……👀7
-
So what you’re trying to say is it could have been anyone.😉SuedeAdidas said:
Yeah - but this one was in Bexleyheath…….oh.Rizzo said:Why is it that almost every so-called witness to UFO landings is some moonshine-soaked redneck with 6 fingers and webbed feet?0 -
Is it easier to write with 6 fingers, or harder?ValleyGary said:Not sure the Bexleyheath slander on this thread should go unpunished. I’ve noted down the perpetrators……👀0 -
My thoughts exactly Dave. Except we’re going to beat WBA.Dave Rudd said:Stig said:g
What might a wider definition of life include then? 'Cos the only additional thing I can think of is things that aren't living.Dave Rudd said:
Way too simplistic. You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.MuttleyCAFC said:Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.
Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.
Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.
Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?
Oh, where to start?
Maybe read up on Nealson & Conrad (1999), although you'll need an account at The Royal Society.
Here's an abstract:
Molecular methods of taxonomy and phylogeny have changed the way in which life on earth is viewed; they have allowed us to transition from a eukaryote-centric (five-kingdoms) view of the planet to one that is peculiarly prokaryote-centric, containing three kingdoms, two of which are prokaryotic unicells. These prokaryotes are distinguished from their eukaryotic counterparts by their toughness, tenacity and metabolic diversity. Realization of these features has, in many ways, changed the way we feel about life on earth, about the nature of life past and about the possibility of finding life elsewhere. In essence, the limits of life on this planet have expanded to such a degree that our thoughts of both past and future life have been altered. The abilities of prokaryotes to withstand many extreme conditions has led to the term extremophiles, used to describe the organisms that thrive under conditions thought just a few years ago, to be inconsistent with life. Perhaps the most extensive adaptation to extreme conditions, however, is represented by the ability of many bacteria to survive nutrient conditions not compatible with eukaryotic life. Prokaryotes have evolved to use nearly every redox couple that is in abundance on earth, filling the metabolic niches left behind by the oxygen-using, carbon-eating eukaryotes. This metabolic plasticity leads to a common feature in physically stratified environments of layered microbial communities, chemical indicators of the metabolic diversity of the prokaryotes. Such 'metabolic extremophily' forms a backdrop by which we can view the energy flow of life on this planet, think about what the evolutionary past of the planet might have been, and plan ways to look for life elsewhere, using the knowledge of energy flow on earth.
Then take a look at the Fermi Paradox and we can go from there.
I fancy a 1-1 draw at The Hawthorns.1 -
Not UFO related but the case of Elisa Lam is a real mystery. Her body was discovered in a locked water tank atop of a hotel in LA. The footage of her, behaving erratically, in a lift is very disturbing0
-
Thanks for your response and for pointing me in the direction of Nealson & Conrad (1999). I did actually find an open source for this on the internet, if anyone else is interested: https://www.sciencetheearth.com/uploads/2/4/6/5/24658156/1999_nealson_and_conrad_life-_past_present_and_future.pdfDave Rudd said:Stig said:
What might a wider definition of life include then? 'Cos the only additional thing I can think of is things that aren't living.Dave Rudd said:
Way too simplistic. You are restricting yourself to a single universe and the human concepts of Life, Time and Space.MuttleyCAFC said:Whilst it is possible, even likely that life exists elsewhere there are two massive issues which make it unlikely we have been or will be visited by aliens. Firstly distance. It just isn't viable with the distances involved. Secondly time. Intelligent Aliens may have existed millions of years ago or may exist millions of years into the future. Their time when they can do this has to align with our short speckle of time. The odds are against I think.
The other thing we need to find is life on another planet. That can be basic life as that suggests there is the potential for life to happen in decent numbers based on mathematics. We haven't yet found this so life may be rarer than we might think. Of course when life starts certain things have to happen for intelligent life to come from that. How likely were those things to happen also? We could even find life on this planet that we know came from a different life creating incident. That would say life is easy to create in the right conditions. We haven't found this yet.
Throw in the multi-universe theory, a wider definition of 'Life' and variants on multi-dimensional Time and Space and things look quite different.
Maybe all things exist always and everywhere, and our reality is a glimpse through a hole in a fence.
Anyway ... do you think we'll get a result at West Brom tomorrow night?
Oh, where to start?
Maybe read up on Nealson & Conrad (1999), although you'll need an account at The Royal Society.
Here's an abstract:
Molecular methods of taxonomy and phylogeny have changed the way in which life on earth is viewed; they have allowed us to transition from a eukaryote-centric (five-kingdoms) view of the planet to one that is peculiarly prokaryote-centric, containing three kingdoms, two of which are prokaryotic unicells. These prokaryotes are distinguished from their eukaryotic counterparts by their toughness, tenacity and metabolic diversity. Realization of these features has, in many ways, changed the way we feel about life on earth, about the nature of life past and about the possibility of finding life elsewhere. In essence, the limits of life on this planet have expanded to such a degree that our thoughts of both past and future life have been altered. The abilities of prokaryotes to withstand many extreme conditions has led to the term extremophiles, used to describe the organisms that thrive under conditions thought just a few years ago, to be inconsistent with life. Perhaps the most extensive adaptation to extreme conditions, however, is represented by the ability of many bacteria to survive nutrient conditions not compatible with eukaryotic life. Prokaryotes have evolved to use nearly every redox couple that is in abundance on earth, filling the metabolic niches left behind by the oxygen-using, carbon-eating eukaryotes. This metabolic plasticity leads to a common feature in physically stratified environments of layered microbial communities, chemical indicators of the metabolic diversity of the prokaryotes. Such 'metabolic extremophily' forms a backdrop by which we can view the energy flow of life on this planet, think about what the evolutionary past of the planet might have been, and plan ways to look for life elsewhere, using the knowledge of energy flow on earth.
Then take a look at the Fermi Paradox and we can go from there.
I fancy a 1-1 draw at The Hawthorns.
I found it a fascinating, though (for me at least) a tricky read - lots of time spent looking up definitions. I note that even in their own terms the paper was meant to, 'stimulate thought and draw reactions rather than to be given truths'. Whilst they give lots of examples for life being more diverse and robust than many of us typically think, as lay-person I'm not convinced that their six point definition of life, based on structure, chemistry, replication, evolution, energy consumption, motility seems that different to what I might have expected scientists to come up with. Though, I may well be in Rumsfeld territory here in not knowing what I don't know.
Whilst their work on prokaryotes suggests that there may be more opportunities for extra-terrestial life to exist than previously thought. It still strikes me that it's not going to be particularly easy to detect. As someone who spends a considerable amount of time out in the wild trying to detect known species, and who frequently fails despite having someone giving me clear instructions where to look, the possibility of trying to detect microscopic cells that "associate with rocks, usually just under the surface" millions of miles, or even light-years away, seems quite mind blowing. They stressed very early in their paper of the importance of identifying properties that are measurable. I know that they have the ability to detect chemicals on other planets through differences in light received, but I just don't see how we can be certain that such chemicals would only be caused by the presence of life. I wonder if the hole in the fence may be just too small and too far away to ever truly identify any forms of life elsewhere.0 -
But maybe the aliens that have come before are having the same issues with observing and measuring life? This could explain why a quiet corner spot in Bexleyheath was so unimpressive for them and they never came back. The femi paradox is helpful to understand this:
From Google AI:Key Aspects of the Paradox:- Scale: With billion stars in the Milky Way alone, many similar to the Sun, it is statistically probable that intelligent life exists elsewhere.
- Time: The universe is billion years old, providing ample time for civilizations to arise and develop interstellar travel.
- The Silence: Despite decades of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) projects, no verified signals or signs of engineering (e.g., Dyson spheres) have been detected.
Proposed Solutions and Theories:- The Great Filter: A barrier exists in the evolution of life (e.g., from abiogenesis to technological intelligence) that is nearly impossible to surpass, meaning we are alone or very rare.
- The Dark Forest Theory: Civilizations exist but remain silent, fearing that revealing their location invites destruction by other, more advanced, and dangerous civilizations.
- The Zoo Hypothesis: Advanced civilizations are aware of us but choose not to interact, allowing Earth to develop in isolation.
- Technological Limitations: Interstellar travel is too costly or difficult, or advanced civilizations exist in forms we cannot detect.
- We Are First: Humanity may be among the first intelligent civilizations to emerge in the galaxy.
The paradox remains a central debate in astrobiology, often studied alongside the Drake Equation to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations.
Result prediction therefore 0-0.1 -
I'm going for 1 nil to us0
