digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at dailymail.co.uk —

Police Helicopter Has Close Encounter With a UFO

dailymail.co.uk — A police helicopter had a near miss with a UFO in what appears to have been one of the first sightings of its kind. The helicopter, with a three-man crew, was forced to swerve sharply to avoid being hit by the UFO.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 06/21/2008, -64/+30Wonder if Kucinich was driving?
    • dOOBiEx213, on 06/22/2008, -17/+16Driving or FLYING? Secondly, the helicopter or the UFO? Stevanoski's attempt at a joke: FAIL.
      • enclaved, on 06/22/2008, -16/+6No, you seem to think that if you take a joke seriously enough you can make it fail, but it was a joke, so who cares if he was driving or flying, the intent and meaning are clear, and as it's Kucinich who has stated he's seen a UFO, it would be clear that he's flying the helicopter and seeing the UFO. I'm sorry you were not successful this time around, but you're free to try again at your earliest convenience.
        • archiesteel, on 06/22/2008, -2/+12The problem was that the joke really wasn't funny. It's fair game to shoot down non-funny jokes.
    • paulvq, on 06/22/2008, -4/+3I don't get it.
    • lex0nyc, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2More likely Captain Jack.
    • BlaiddMawrDrwg, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Who-inich?
  • Omek, on 06/21/2008, -8/+117And yet, the sheep look so calm. ;-)
    • BN2L, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1I have to disagree, they look a little shaken.
    • ExGhost, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3Lamb chops
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -1/+17I don't see a welshman in the field so what have the sheep to be afraid of?
    • jimminy, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Someone's going to look at that picture in 2108 and smile.
    • zackattack1188, on 06/22/2008, -7/+5AHAHAH this is s ***** retarded, just saying, jeez i cant believe they actually wrote a news story on this. or that it actually got to the front page on digg.
    • OliveStreet, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0Mutton anyone?
    • Klrikcard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Some typical inbred english Yorkshire sheep-shagger flying back home. Them inbred limies.
    • blankoboy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1They looked up and said "baaaaah!".
  • pcgeek101, on 06/21/2008, -45/+16Meh ... UFOs are for the crazies. It would be cool if there were some empirical evidence, but I fear that there is not.
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -3/+26So you are either saying there is no such thing as a flying object or that all flying obects have been identified... right?
      • noen, on 06/22/2008, -7/+4No, he's saying there is no empirical evidence. None. Most sightings are hoaxes or the delusions of schizophrenics and other crap. Those that can't be explained are not good enough to get your underwear in a bunch over. There is no credible evidence for alien craft.
        • Orderless, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Who said anything about aliens? We're talking about UFOs.
        • noen, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4Orderless, you may not like it but UFO = alien. I know that you have an agenda and want to pretend it only means "unidentified" it just doesn't matter. What matters is usage, that is what determines what people mean when they use a word or phrase. Context matters. So when someone says "I saw a UFO!" they don't mean "I saw a light in the sky that was probably just a Chinese lantern."
    • solidcube, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5I'm a skeptic too, but I have to ask what you'd consider empirical evidence here.

      There are supposedly crashed UFOs and alien bodies that people claim to have seen. What kind of evidence would you count as empirical? Would you have to see it for yourself?

      I know some people who are totally, round-the-bend nuts who believe in UFOs. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. In fact, according to the Drake equations, it's kind of surprising that we haven't found any intelligent life yet.
      • Syphon8, on 06/22/2008, -12/+3The drake equations are a load of *****.
        • 4bit, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10...because...?

          Need a little more than because you say so.
        • MechaFalcon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3No you don't, this is the internet. At most, you'll get told to shut up and be called a *****. That's internet evidence.
        • Fafnir43, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Well, it has constants in it like "average number of planets that can potentially support life per solar system" and "fraction of planets which, having developed life, develop intelligent life". It basically takes a problem we don't know ***** about (UFOs) and turns it into a problem we don't know ***** about either, but can easily come up with numbers for that give any outcome you like depending on intellectual integrity.

          Unless you seriously think we can estimate things like this to any sane level of accuracy (in which case as far as the people who study them for a living are concerned you are entering crackpot territory), it's pretty indefensible as serious evidence one way or the other. So, that's /why/ they're a load of *****.
        • 4bit, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1See... funny thing is, we don't really need to know exact numbers, we just need to decide if the fractions are above 0.

          If all the numbers are above 0, then guess what? There's someone out there.

          Now, is this 'science'? Hell no. It doesn't give any testable hypothesis. But then, speculating that Dark Matter or Energy has something to do with the universe expanding isn't science until we can test for it.

          What it does do, is give us something to base tests on. A reason to have them. Until the reasonable explanation of one of those numbers is 0, there's a reason to see what's out there.
        • threemagic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1@Fafnir43: it takes into consideration probabilities. Which we do know "*****" about. I don't disbelieve in other planets supporting life, that's ludicrous given the size of the universe.. but at the same time, given the size of the universe, for something to take the HUGE time and energy to come visit us without making contact seems incredibly silly to me.
    • mfhayes, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6U.F.O. does not mean "piloted by extraterrestrials".

      What kind of "empirical evidence" do you expect to find when dealing with an unidentified craft?

      The fact that no evidence exists is why they're referred to as UFOs in the first place.
    • BlaiddMawrDrwg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2move along... move along.. nothing to see here...
    • daebat, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Don't say meh. Buried.
  • fudged71, on 06/21/2008, -14/+128dailymail never seems do disappoint

    wait, that is the exact opposite of what I meant
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -0/+48http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7465041.stm
      • xaeon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+12The comparisons between the BBC article and the Daily Mail article are hilarious.
        • DalamarArgent, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7The difference between sensationalized trash tabloids and real news.
    • Yuo122986, on 06/22/2008, -8/+6Thanks, I would have never sensed your sarcasm if you had not explained it below

      wait, yeah I would have
      • gn0stik, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Since you're the only digger that matters he probably should have just left it off.

        Note: I'm omitting the sarcasm tag so as not to offend you're superiority complex.
    • Vodd9, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2I caught myself searching for a reference to The Onion, especially after seeing the picture. I was disappointed.
      More like Daily Fail.
    • Chadbr0chill17, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If they DID crash maybe there would be evidence, but miraculously the avoided any contact!
  • lucy22, on 06/22/2008, -16/+7I still want to believe.
  • t3rmv3locity, on 06/22/2008, -12/+55Anybody else think in a week we are going to find out this is a hoax?
    • dOOBiEx213, on 06/22/2008, -0/+28They saw an Unidentified Flying Object...what's so hard to believe about that? Could've been someone tossing giant boulders of *****, and still not be a hoax since that too would meet the criteria of a UFO... at least until identified.
      • ManicA, on 06/22/2008, -5/+1because there was a story about a crop circle a few days ago

        Its probably Richard Branson, he's fond of hoaxes and stunts.
      • Rahodeb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4That may be true, but how many man made things are there flying around in the sky that a pilot can't even identify as either a plane, helicopter, blimp, etc..
        • Orderless, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Top secret test aircraft? This was right outside of a RAF base.
    • yayintertubes, on 06/22/2008, -0/+15Yeah, the police fly around in helicopters hoaxing ufos ¬_¬
    • goblindegook, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Nonsense. It wouldn't take us a week.
    • maggotsan, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4Some of us will realize that sooner.
    • gn0stik, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3More likely we'll find out that it was venus, a light house, a streetlamp, ball lightning, or swampgas.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I'm going to guess that some people will claim seeing a blue police box mysteriously appearing in Cardiff around the same time.
    • megaloid, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1A billion dollars (not mine) says that the object is some kind of military UAV.
    • randomerratum, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Hell no!
      The photograph of the incident says "© Science Photo Library"

      It says "Science" and "Photo" right there in the copyright!
      Science!

      Therefore it is real.
  • Synova, on 06/22/2008, -23/+79What a load of *****.
    • xtrench, on 06/22/2008, -2/+52What a load of dailymail.
      • Smills, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Hey, that's taking it a bit far don't you think. Really, I think that the only news source we can describe as, excuse my language, dailymail, is dailymail itself, and oh...
      • gn0stik, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5what a load of BBC?

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7465041.stm
        • xaeon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Yeah, but have you read the two articles? And the bloody artists impression?! Seriously funny stuff.
        • Fafnir43, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah. I accept it probably happened. The Daily Mail article is going "OMG FLYING OBJECT IT IS TEH ALIENS!!!" The BBC are going "Some pilots saw something they couldn't identify." There is a slight difference in tone. One hits the perfect blend of funny and depressing (the depressing hits when you realise some people use the Mail as their main news source), while the other is just boilerplate reporting.
      • Brainmodder, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Dailymail the second biggest source of BS on the internet.
        • Fafnir43, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2No, no, they're bigger than Fox. Fox is just a propaganda mouthpiece staffed by people with no souls. The Mail is staffed by people who write things like this and believe them.

          And in case you didn't know: this is actually a newspaper, not just a random blog. (I mention it because it's actually "Daily Mail", Dailymail would be a bloody silly name for a paper, and knowing it's a paper makes its stories ten times funnier.)
    • spawnfree, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3that a chopper could out-maneuver a UFO?

      i think we will see more of these BS 'hostile UFO' stories.
      The US and British governments want orbital weapon platforms to help maintain their economic empire.
      fighting the 'evil aliens' is just the BS needed for us all to go along and pay for it.

      • curtisag, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2If that were true we would not have given China most favored trade status. In fact, world trade is what will ultimately end the US's status as world economic superpower.
      • sonoran, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Tin foil wars
        • Tyrghast, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Digg would win, we already have an army of conspiracy 'theorists'
    • webcrumb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5"A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said it had heard nothing about the incident.

      "But it is certainly not advisable for police helicopters to go chasing what they think are UFOs," the spokesperson said. "

      So MOD advice is not to chase UFOs.

      They have guidance on it. If they have guidance it's not a rare occurrence.
      • Mushroomhero, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0webcrumb I like your thinking.
      • Fafnir43, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Your views intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • megamod, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1too bad they don't have cameras on their dashboards or the foot chase cameras
  • Evocati, on 06/22/2008, -6/+323A UFO is an unindentified flying object. UFO doesn't neccesarily mean alien spaceship. Seeing something that can't be identified doesn't make you a crazy.
    • Simonft, on 06/22/2008, -2/+57A fast bird could be categorized as a UFO if you don't see it well enough. So could a thrown brick.
      • dollar0dot02, on 06/22/2008, -2/+36"A fast bird could be categorized as a UFO if you don't see it well enough."

        Unladen Feathered Object. African or European?
      • supernuke, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0"A fast bird could be categorized as a UFO if you don't see it well enough. So could a thrown brick."


        I wouldn't say a brick could fly. It can fall with style, but it can't fly.
      • supernuke, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1As in: Unidentified FLYING Object
    • RaDeus, on 06/22/2008, -0/+48i also love how UFO has become shorthand for alien...

      i blame the media and the tin-foils for that one...
    • bloodmoney, on 06/22/2008, -14/+11I love how people don't understand that language continually changes. If you say "UFO" you damn well know what people will think.
      • Hangingtree, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4Just because you or other idiots do not understand the meaning of the term does not mean we should change the entire definition of the term.

        UFO means UFO, not alien space craft.
    • Borgcube636, on 06/22/2008, -15/+8I don't understand UFO skeptics. I have seen a few UFO's and I've also heard the most absurdly ridiculous "explanations" by skeptics of what those UFO's were. Everything from a bird, to a speck of dust on a window. For the love of god OPEN YOUR MIND!!
      • iamafatguy, on 06/22/2008, -5/+15Hi. I'm a [ufo] skeptic, and I'll make it easy for you to understand:

        There has never been any credible evidence for the existence of extra terrestrials visiting this planet, ever.

        What's so hard to understand about that?
        • blqysmg, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Actually, there has never been evidence presented to YOU, which you find creditable. You cannot speak for everyone else on the planet. There well may have been evidence presented of which you have no knowledge.
      • tripledjr, on 06/22/2008, -6/+1K if there are other species out there that have made it as technologically as far as we have the odds of them coming to earth out of the INFINITE number of planets and places to go in space are about 1 in a quadzibillion, the odds of you seeing this happen are about .1 in a million quadzibillion and the odds of many people reporting sightings are about 0. If they existed and they've been here they either would of introduced themselves or wiped us clean. Neither of which happened.
        • KennMac, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Or perhaps the number of planets sustaining life is so few, that Earth is worthy destination. Look, when you actually understand the vast distances involved and the technology used to conquer it, then you can come back and spread your biased opinions as fact.
        • flameboy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Guys, you are speculating about the motives of aliens.
          Come on.
      • npowel, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I'm confused, let me get it right. Birds and dust are ridiculous, and UFOs (I assume we're talking about the "alien" kind) are the probable, sensible answer?

        By the way, why the quotation marks around "explanations"? That's exactly what they are. It doesn't add strength to an argument by just shoving quotation marks around things to make them seem unreasonable.
        • jp12380, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"explanations" meaning they are absolute crap and really don't qualify as a good explanation.
    • chamberlanderic, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1well if it fly it ain't a car or a submarine !
    • Ubermann, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12Video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f00_1214113883
      • tyywebb, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1I'm shocked.....that that wasn't a Rick Roll.
        • atgmac, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Why would there be a rick roll on liveleak?
        • tcpip4lyfe, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Why isn't this the article that got dugg?
      • Technopundit, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Eeyepp. It's unidentified alright,
    • topace3000, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6Uh ok let's just ignore how it's a colloquial term for supposed alien craft when used in most instances in modern society and defend the retarded article!
    • jaydedragon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3thank you thank you thank you Evocati.. i knew i was going to find people calling others names on here.. when everone seems to forget that a UFO does not mean alien.
    • Wakuko, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Exactly what I was going to say.

      Differentiate UFO from EFO, Extraterrestrial Flying Object

      or AFO, Alien Flying Object, if you wish

      But stop this UFO=Aliens nonsense!
    • dralezero, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2But since they were quite sure of what they saw how can it be unidentified?
    • tillerman00, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1yeah, *****.
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4"They're convinced it was a UFO. It sounds far-fetched, but they know what they saw." What a nonsensical statement.
    • zebco, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1This is digg. QUIT MAKING RATIONAL POINTS!
    • maca2kx, on 06/23/2008, -2/+0Dishwasher wasn't a word in the past and the phrase 'what you up to?' had no meaning a century ago. Language changes and although 'UFO', strictly speaking, means no more than Unidentified Flying Object, colloquially it is synonymous with alien spacecraft. If the coppers thought they saw an aircraft they couldn't identify they would have said so to avoid any of the embarrassing implications that go hand in hand with claiming seeing a UFO due to its closeness with alien spacecraft. But you're right, instead of accepting that the term UFO goes hand in hand with aliens let's defend the Daily Mail and this ridiculous article and allow them to continue this sorry state of affairs.
    • robbiemuffin, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1best line in the article: However, since the object was flying and has not been identified, it appears to satisfy all the relevant criteria to be referred to as a UFO.
  • Rockout, on 06/22/2008, -8/+322When I read the headline, I was sceptical.... but when I saw the picture attached, I'm a believer!
    • Mushroomhero, on 06/22/2008, -5/+1I won't lie, it's completely ridiculous. I find it hard that they would push to use that graphic. If they wanted to make the story more authentic even a map would do better.
  • JustAn0th3rFace, on 06/22/2008, -14/+2like they would really release something like this to the public.. common..
    • happywaffle, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0In case you're wondering, we downvoted you for spelling "come on" as "common."
  • doctechnical, on 06/22/2008, -2/+147FTA:
    "However, since the object was flying and has not been identified, it appears to satisfy all the relevant criteria to be referred to as a UFO."

    Seeing as UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, this is indeed damning evidence.

    • Andyl194, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1yea, I thought the same thing until I saw that ridiculous picture.
      • ceredron, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Um... what? Did you read the previous comment? There is no... logical...

        *head blows up*
    • Slayer166, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Anyone else notice how police helicopters have video cameras, but there is no video or audio?
    • SharkyTech, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Every object is unidentifiable if the observer is stupid enough.
  • DangerCollie, on 06/22/2008, -11/+33They can navigate across billions of miles of space and time, survive an atmospheric insertion but, despite all that advanced technology, they can't maneuver around another craft in their flight path? They can master space travel but not something as simple as obstacle avoidance.

    I put that in the same category as alien abduction. They travel across billions of miles of space in order to anal probe somebody. Come on. It's more likely that an intelligent species would avoid us like a disease. And that's how we'd be viewed. A dirty, polluting, grubby and primitive species. That's provided that they're not so different that they'd even recognize us as something living.
    • liuite, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2maybe they just came out of a worm hole and they haven't perfected the technology of detecting what's on the other side yet:-)
    • bsonline, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4You just described how the average (and above average) woman views the average digger. Awesome.
      • npowel, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Surely I can't be the only one getting sick of the whole unfunny "Digg user = ***** with women" crap.
        • bsonline, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2I kind of agree. I just couldn't resist the opportunity.

          "It's more likely that an intelligent species would avoid us like a disease. And that's how we'd be viewed. A dirty, polluting, grubby and primitive species. That's provided that they're not so different that they'd even recognize us as something living."

          It was just too tempting. Meanwhile, I'm married and my wife and I are expecting. I don't think posting on digg (unless you're just obsessively on the computer) means you automatically are a 40 year old virgin. But, c'mon, it was FUNNY.
    • Goblin, on 06/22/2008, -0/+22Maybe they didn't NEED to maneuver around the helicopter, just as we don't need to maneuver our cars around bugs.
      • Metasquares, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1That's simply a matter of size. If this thing were large enough to make that comparison, the helicopter would not have been able to avoid it.
        • Nidy1, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It's not simply a matter of size. We'd drive our cars through water. Maybe it just seemed ridiculous to them to even consider trying to avoid a helicopter.
      • tyywebb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Maybe it's like Silver Surfer...
      • tillerman00, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1tell 'em, Goblin. tell these ***** how E.T. rolls.
    • GPY26, on 06/22/2008, -4/+0actually, i have some material that might imply humans are a lot more 'advanced' in the universe than some of us seem to think. maybe it's just our dimension of it, but we're kings. we're a pinnacle. if you can't see that, you just haven't seen yourself yet.
      • BlaiddMawrDrwg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Ha ha ha, that's a good one.
      • Kallstar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I think I have some of that same 'material'! Full season boxsets of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. Somehow I doubt it qualifies as evidence that humans are a lot more 'advanced' than we're all lead to believe.
        • GPY26, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0you just don't get it.
        • GPY26, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0http://www.acausal.net/visionary/face.png http://www.acausal.net/tolandman.jpg

          shadows and light, baby. the self repeats the self. any ape that can see this has hit something not found in most life in the universe.
        • GPY26, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0then again..
        • Kallstar, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Then again a few shadows and circles aren't nearly as convincing as the special effects let alone the science behind the Stargate series?

          Then again... would you like to explain the significance of those two pictures... or shall i consult an ape?

          I would be more than glad to listen to your ideas/theories but you gotta give a little more context.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 06/22/2008, -2/+21Kinda how we travel thousands of miles to remote locations, study, abduct and probe/tag animals and release them back into their population for study? Its a valid scientific method.

      Why does believing in life outside of our planet in a seemingly infinite universe make you crazy, but god is acceptable?
    • centran, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6maybe they traveled billions of miles to play chicken with someone?
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3I can't understand this train of though, you're essentially saying "they don't behave like us so they can't exist". It's even more frightening that I've heard the same from scientists.

      Technology develops as a result of a stimulus, we developed obstacle avoidance for our aircraft out of necessity, it is entirely plausible that another species could develop highly advanced space travel without the need to develop obstacle avoidance. It is also entirely possible that such a move would be done deliberately to see what, if any response would be made, and advanced space-craft could likely avoid the collision at the very last instance if nothing had happened.

      "They travel across billions of miles of space in order to anal probe somebody."
      Why not? I believe that is called research. Imagine for a moment that fish were intelligent. What do you think theyd have to tell their buddies after experiencing a catch and release aboard a research vessel?

      • iamafatguy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"They travel across billions of miles of space in order to anal probe somebody."
        Why not? I believe that is called research.

        Well, it would be easy to make the logical leap that if a lifeform could make a craft that can transend the types of interstallar distances that would be needed to get here they could make some sort of research tool that was less invasive... To do otherwise is just mean. Maybe they are sadistic prankster aliens.
        • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"Well, it would be easy to make the logical leap that if a lifeform could make a craft that can transend the types of interstallar distances that would be needed to get here they could make some sort of research tool that was less invasive"

          Why? Advances in space travel and advances in medical technology aren't always linked. We can put robots on Mars but a prostrate exam still involves latex gloves.
        • bobbi21, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0I think it's important to also consider why they would care about being less invasive. Considering aliens probably have FAR superior technology, we'd be like bugs to them.

          Look at what we do to animals here. Some animals are still branded for goodness sake. And we routinely just cut up animals for research or inject them with poisons or whatever. Why would aliens care about giving a 10 min anal probe to some lower life form that doesn't even hurt (or so it's usually reported). Maybe they do have non-invasive medical techniques but they're on a budget. They have 10,000 planets across the universe to scan and categorize for forms of life and they don't have the money to pay for the new ultrawave 5000X ("does subatomic scans in 10 zoks flat or your money back!") in each of their space craft.

          And for the prostate exam example, generally true but that's more for cost and simplicity than advances in technology (pretty much the point I was trying to make). We can do MRI's and CT scans to diagnose prostate cancer but most ppl would accept a finger up their but to save a couple grand on those things.
      • Technopundit, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Congratulations. You qualify for medical marijuana.
    • nycmac247, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1LOL since you know so much about it you're premises obviously cannot be flawed therefore your conclusion(s) also cannot be flawed
      • benplaut, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1The logic can be flawed? Making a sound argument has many pitfalls...
    • LucifersDad, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Who said they traveled billions of miles.

      Based on human technology it would be billions of miles, but if they have the shortcut method (worm hole, jump gate or any other exotic method of travel) then it could be 1 mile.

      You also assume they come from this universe, dimension, time , multiverse and so on as we assume there is only 1 multiverse.



    • beabis, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0"...they can't maneuver around another craft in their flight path? They can master space travel but not something as simple as obstacle avoidance."

      Our spacecraft travel 10's or 100's of millions of miles yet have no ability to avoid an unexpected object in their flight path.
  • khulbert, on 06/22/2008, -8/+229I wonder if diggers will now finally realize that The Daily Mail is not a news source....
    • macfan93, on 06/22/2008, -2/+24I wish I could digg your comment more than once
      • Danby123, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Am I the only one sick of hearing that line?
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -2/+32http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7465041.stm
      • MalDON, on 06/22/2008, -8/+6Well ... ***** if the BBC says it, then it must be true.
      • melat0nin, on 06/22/2008, -1/+15It *is* true, you dolt. Seeing a UFO and conclusively proving the existence of extra-terrestrial life are two different things.
      • thecliffbar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2the BBC makes no mention of extra-terrestrial encounters
        • simg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3that's because the aliens took control of the bbc years ago ...
      • MrDo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If that is one of those Steadicam like cameras(the sphere), then I hope the recorded some interesting with it.
      • jp12380, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Don't be silly, the object in the video was swamp gas.

        "some skeptical expert"
    • samthurston, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6What do you mean, it's "fair and balanced" isn't it?
  • stranglethorne, on 06/22/2008, -14/+9pics or it didn't happen
    • indubitably, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0*yeah, because we all know pictures can't be manipulated.
      • stranglethorne, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2well I guess *nothing can be proved these days, except viewing in the flesh and blood
      • indubitably, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0i just don't think photography is the be all end all when deciding what did or did not happen. i didn't take a picture of myself pooping this morning but that doesn't mean the bathroom still didn't stink afterwords.
    • xaeon, on 06/22/2008, -1/+11Did you not see the picture with the article? Absolute proof.
  • TimFrost, on 06/22/2008, -6/+14Well they're Welsh, so it was probably nothing.
  • brutusx, on 06/22/2008, -2/+13Will they give us the courtesy of some lube before the probings? Stand up for your rights!
  • aashay, on 06/22/2008, -8/+50I'm sorry to burst your bubble, the the pic is definitely photoshopped. I can tell by looking at teh pixels
    • FORELS, on 06/22/2008, -6/+1It wasnt Photoshopped.... It was badly Photoshopped! Just look at the stupid helicopters' blades...they are all warped!
      • Mushroomhero, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0That was their attempt at making it look like they had collided. I would have pushed for a huge fireball with a burning helicopter falling to the ground. At least it would be more visually appealing, I think.
    • allocate, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Actually it's definitely real. My girlfriend's sister's boyfriend was the photographer.
  • loganhid, on 06/22/2008, -10/+3I liked the part where they talked about the Police helicopter encounter with a UFO
  • prompel, on 06/22/2008, -18/+16In other news: Pope ***** in the woods, bears wear funny hats.
  • oiooioio, on 06/22/2008, -3/+23“The chopper had to swerve sharply to avoid being hit. The guys said if they’d stayed where they were, they’d be dead – it would’ve been a direct hit."

    ---- well if it hit them then we'd all know what it was and wouldn't have to speculate, those liars!
    • bsonline, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10In all likelyhood, these three cops had busted the aliens' friend for pot possession and this was simply revenge.
  • audleylibrary, on 06/22/2008, -7/+42the daily mail is a british tabloid, I don't understand how this crap keeps getting to the front page
  • sevenvt, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4yeah... so a ufo just mean unidentified flying object. why do they make the jump and say it was an extraterrestrial when no on else did? because this isnt news... buried.
  • straylight08, on 06/22/2008, -5/+31I thought I was reading off the Onion then, but naa... it's the Daily Mail again.
    Gotta love the effort they put into the diagram.
  • son1k, on 06/22/2008, -7/+17In other news: 90% of Welsh Police officers found to be under the influence of drugs while performing their duties.
    • samthurston, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11They don't need drugs, they're already Welsh
      • Klrikcard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0If they were English they'd be taking them for inbred cowardice.
  • ufia, on 06/22/2008, -7/+4Bat Boy was seen fleeing the scene. It's true, the newspaper wrote it.
  • Andyl194, on 06/22/2008, -3/+39oh yea.... that picture doesn't dramatize it at all
  • Richvideo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+19Call Torchwood
    • BlaiddMawrDrwg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Even they screen their calls.
    • Mier, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It was spotted in Cardiff so I'm guessing someone wants another go at The Doctor. Probably the Sontarans or maybe since The Master survived what about the Rani? hmmmmmmm.
  • rowlodge, on 06/22/2008, -6/+5what i like about "digg", the "national inquirer", stories
  • xs11ax, on 06/22/2008, -3/+12surely a police chopper would have equipment to take video footage or pictures??
  • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -3/+21Better source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7465041.stm
  • MtheoryX, on 06/22/2008, -8/+35I wish there was a "Bury as Daily Mail" button on digg.
    • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -7/+6Along with a "Bury as Huffington Post rubbish" button as well.
      • JustinHopewell, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10I would like to see a "Bury is as bury does" button.

        I don't know what that means.
  • Infowarmachine, on 06/22/2008, -8/+6there doesnt seem to be alot of DIRECT evidence of UFOs available
    but there does seem to be alot of evidence of UFO coverups..

    theres some kind of story there, most of us just dont have any idea what it is though..
    • pantone286, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Funny the ***** some people will convince themselves of with no evidence.
      • Mushroomhero, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Seeing something first hand is plenty evidence to get someone to believe something. Having the proper equipment to document it at that very moment is a lot harder. Then to come out with evidence and be buried in a crowd of other people trying to do the same combined with hoaxes, well it's hard to tell what is evidence and what is not.
  • mrspurs16, on 06/22/2008, -7/+7Their Welsh.... Exactly

    I'm Welsh, so don't digg me down -.-
    • julianrod, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2They're?
    • roflcopters, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Can I dig you down for misusing 'their'?

      P.S. I'm Welsh too.
      • mrspurs16, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Sorry, I guess I'm a big hypocrite over my spelling. And no, you can't Digg me down =3

        But we can Digg each other up because we're Welsh!
        • archiesteel, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1I'm digging both of you down. Because you're Welsh.
    • 88chrisb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Yeah I'm Welsh, I dugg you...then dug you down for the wrong use of the word 'their'.
  • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -11/+5The UFO hailed from the planet CHANGE.
    • topace3000, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Dude you're THAT guy, aren't you.
  • mrgoat, on 06/22/2008, -5/+20daily mail?

    on the front page of digg?

    with a ***** story?

    NO ***** WAY!!!!!!!!
  • pantone286, on 06/22/2008, -4/+59“They are convinced it was a UFO. It sounds far-fetched, but they know what they saw.

    ...umm no they don't. That is what makes it a ufo.
    • onelikeseabass, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yes, they do. They know they saw something that they couldn't identify. I'm amazed that you have been dugg so many times.
    • pantone286, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2english ***** do you speak it? how in hell can you KNOW what the hell you saw if it is unidentified? unidentified means that you DON'T know.
  • chrishavel, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Too bad all the juicy bits are made up: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0806201513 ...
    They saw another aircraft. They tried to close in on it, but couldn't due to lack of fuel. No near-miss. No "Ooo ... a flying saucer!"
  • motters, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7This is quoting from The Sun - hardly an authoritative source of news. Tabloid newspapers have a long history of reporting wacky UFO stuff, especially during the summer "silly season". Even if this is a genuine non-sensationalist story (which I doubt) there are various new kinds of UAVs in development which don't necessarily look like conventional aircraft and might not be smart enough to avoid other air traffic.
    • pantone286, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2British people wouldn't just go and make stuff up. It has to be true.
  • myass666mlong, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2england , police , whiskey = ????
    • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Nope, South Wales, The Doctor, Alien Invaders.
  • Christbait, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8It was an RPG... probably fired by someone trying to get some sleep. Them police choppers are damn noisy.
    • Texmurphy01, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1My money's on the new Fire Emblem
  • DannySpace, on 06/22/2008, -6/+3Damn Weather Ballons!
  • happynuss, on 06/22/2008, -7/+1lolol!
  • MasterThief117, on 06/22/2008, -8/+3I like how they purposely used the acronym UFO to be ambiguous.
  • Betrayal, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5So was the UFO crashing? In that illustration it seems severely damaged.
  • jeremyfohferemy, on 06/22/2008, -5/+8If the dailymail is the garbage men of news then that makes Digg the landfill.
  • PataGoRica, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6what a bunch of crap. It was clearly just harry potter out for a drunken ride. stupid muggles.
    • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Nope, it was a Roxicorical Phalapatorian cruiser carrying a cargo of dangerous captive Vashta Nerada on route to drop them off on Skarro as a little gift for the Daleks.
  • Janizzary, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4Why is there lightning damaging the UFO in the illustration? The article makes no mention of that.
  • Hillsbottom, on 06/22/2008, -9/+2It was probably a flying pig
    • vinceislegend, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1The ones in the helicopter were the flying pigs. Did you even read this?
  • IanPR, on 06/22/2008, -4/+26I guess aliens hate the police too. :P
    • Owwmykneecap, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3***** the police coming straight from the underground
      From a young alien got it bad coz i'm green.
  • 1of42, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Must've been going pretty far over the speed limit...
    • twishart, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I, for one, welcome our clearly inebriated overlords.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.