Artifact recovered from UFO incident in New Zealand

As reported by The Dominion Post, a resident of Hawke’s Bay, near Hastings, NZ, was fortunately in another room when this unidentified object crashed through the roof of their lounge (which I’m assuming is Kiwi for ‘living room’) yesterday:

Though the image caption on the site doesn’t specify, I believe the object in question is the one on the left. Says the report:

CAA spokesman Bill Sommers told NZPA an aeronautical engineer studied the part and found it was not from a plane.

“So we don’t know what it’s from.”

It would be “impractical” to consider that it had fallen out of the plane somehow, he said.

He also discounted the object coming from outer space.

“It’s not the kind of thing you’d want to put into space because it’s too heavy,” Mr Sommer said.

“So it’s a bit mysterious.”

  • Unidentified? Check.
  • Flying? Check.
  • Object? Check.

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you photographic proof of UFOs.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Artifact recovered from UFO incident in New Zealand”

  1. While the object is definitely an “object”, since it was not observed en route to the lounge, it’s not clear whether it was truly “flying.” It may have actually been “thrown,” “plummeted,” or even “dropped.” Googling “SELEY” (the name stamped onto it) gives about 84,000 hits, so I think that we safely say that it won’t remain “unidentified” for long. In the end, I think we can just call this an “object.”

  2. Interesting. Two points of discussion:

    1) Barring exotic circumstances, it seems that most recovery scenarios will negate the ‘flying’ aspect of UFOs. That is to say that, for the purpose of identification, that we should adopt the unspoken understanding that the ‘flying’ aspect of UFOs include objects that a) have been (but are no longer) flying, b) are demonstrably capable of flight, whether or not they are currently flying, or c) can be demonstrated (or reasdonably inferred) to be a component of an otherwise unidentified flying object’s apparatus. As such, the object itself may not only no longer be flying, it may of itself be incapable of flight. Identified objects meeting these criteria (eg, IFOs): Apollo re-entry craft, Skylab debris, Kal El’s Kryptonian escape pod.

    2) ‘Identified’ is relative. This object, quite possibly something along the lines of a brake pad manufactured by a company named Seley, only qualifies as evidence of a UFO through a loop hole: the fact that when people like you and me speak of UFOs, what we really mean is extraterrestrial space craft. Which, I hope we can all agree, this is not.

    But toss this one in your processing unit: how long does something have to be under observation before it’s no longer subject to scrutiny? For the sake of discussion, I’m going to propose a benchmark: if something has been with us for as long as we have been recording history, that it gets a semi-official pass. Which isn’t to say it gets a pass by the scientific community: lord knows, those guys are still giving mitochondria a hard time, and the mitos have been with us a good long time.

    Still, it’s rare to hear intelligent debate about the potentially off-world origins of anything you see regularly, whether it’s some fantastic spectacle (i.e., Stonehenge, the pyramids at Giza, the crash site in Roswell, NM) or something so commonplace it practically escapes notice (i.e., anything you see on the Discovery networks). Why? I suspect at least in part because, if these things do in fact have non-terrestrial origins, we’re okay with that. The notion goes like this: something crashlanded here 250,000 years ago and asimilated into our ecosystem? At this point, it might as well be earthling. Hell, my people have only planted their feet on this hunk of land for maybe 200 years, and we consider ourselves American.

  3. One should not trust too heavily in scientific observation. Humans have been observing the Solar System for hundreds of years, and have not noticed the mathematical order that lies beneath the apparently random distribution of the planetary orbits.
    This order is factual, and puts the lie to scientific assertions that the System came about by chance and gravity alone. The web pages containing the math have been on line for ten years, and have been seen and checked by thousands of academics, but still, the observed fact of order in the system has not received public acknowledgement.
    http://homepages.tesco.net/astroequation

  4. Hi, G-

    And thanks for stopping by. It might be a bleary-eyed Sunday morning thing, or maybe an effect of my basic mathtardation, but I’m not sure I’m following your point. It looks like you’re saying that, as confirmed by mathematical scrutiny, the formation of the solar system was governed (or just influenced?) by powers that can’t be accounted for by scientific observation. Is that correct?

    -Eric S.

  5. zosido You’re the greatest! JMHO

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: