A password will be e-mailed to you.

Because Science’s Kyle Hill entertainingly explains why almost all cinematic depictions of space battle are just dead wrong. Star Wars and Star Trek are obviously easy targets, but he also offers possible scientifical solutions that could be used by script writers and filmmakers in the future, which would be just as thrilling as blasting the Death Star with a proton torpedo:

Come on, Thor dude! We UFO buffs know exactly what real battles in space look like:

That’s right. Space battles look just like small ice particles blown away by the space shuttle’s thrusters. Take THAT, J.J.!

…Ok, ok. Sorry for going all James Oberg on this. I admit I still find the STS-48 mission footage interesting –yet faaar from being the ‘groundbreaking proof’ I thought it was 27 years ago– and that Jack Kasher,┬áProfessor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Nebraska –who analyzed the video back in 1991– may have a point when he says the abrupt direction change performed by one of the objects cannot be explained as simple ice particles, as skeptics like Oberg adamantly posit.

But there’s no denying that we in the UFO research/discussion field are as guilty of projecting our assumptions on alleged evidence as directors of Sci-Fi blockbusters. There’s a change in direction ergo it has to be a extraterrestrial spacecraft –not only that, but the object responded to the flash followed by the streak that seemed to move to where the object was originally moving. SECRET SPACE PROGRAM VINDICATED!!

That’s a bigger logical jump than the Kessel run in 12 parsecs, don’t you think?

All I’m saying is we have to be careful with our assumptions. Just as Kyle shoots down dogfighting in space, we should also scrutinize what we take or not for granted about the UFO mystery. Because otherwise we are only pew-pewing ideas and boldly going… nowhere.