When the evidence is overwhelming

[Paxus]

General

In a thread where I mention credible witnesses on ground in the air (pilots and astronauts), incredible speeds, maneuvers, multiple radars showing same phenomenon witnessed, metallic craft etc, you really really really shouldn't even MENTION kites or kids toys... seriously...

A pilot knows something HIGHLY irregular flying at supersonic speeds from a kite....

Tell me it's a natural plasma phenomenon and let's investigate that, by all means, but if you are thinking of toys, you're really not getting the UFO incidents I started this thread about in the first place...

A lot of you are arguing that these things, even with my criteria list, may be weather phenomenon when what I am really asking is, 'why, when you have sightings, with all these listed criteria, happen more than once, you are still really against considering that they very likely may be ET after all.

[You see I'm asking why the skepticism in the face of this evidence. Why not say, 'well, it looks about 50/50, or whatever odds you subscribe to... it's the blatant - NO WAY ones, I don't get...]

@ badeskov - Firstly - thanks, so much, for contributing!

Now, about these plasma.... Wouldn't they appear irregular on the radar?

Wouldn't they be UNuniform in shape/size etc?

[edit: I read the bit about shape but again, this wouldn't be consistent or constant or the norm]

I read what you wrote about their 'behaviour' but this could only be effectively concluded by studying the actual flight-paths of the human pilot and the anomaly in each case and who did what and when....

From what I have read, they don't seem to be natural phenomenon (even plasma, reacting to simple physical phenomenon like a radar ping or switching radar modes etc)

Keep in mind too - the plasma phenomenon would account for the glowing type UFOs, not the ones which look like, say a metalic disc...

Oh... ok, I just read what you wrote regarding metallic colouring - getting ahead of myself...

*LOL*, you wrote: "we don't know what energy sources are responsible for their creation" <-- It's the ET's craft's propulsion system!!!

I know what you mean but, this seems contradictory: "There have been lots of theories, but none has really been validated yet. We just know it happens. Why and how? We simply don't know. But in the end, it is basic physics, albeit with an unhand-ably large amount of variables. "

Side note:

I'd really like you (badeskov) to get Luke Fortune's book on Plasma Propulsion system patents and see what you think of them so you could let me know if any of them are viable.

What all of us, who are interested in uncovering the UFO mystery, should never forget to investigate is the likelihood of UFOs being secret (perhaps even privately built) human craft.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Paxus

[mcmchugh99]

There is certainly a pervasive culture of secrecy in the US governmnet, and by no means only about UFOs--although I think that is probably one of the most highly classified secrets of all.

For example, Ronald Reagan attempted to have all the computer and email records of his adminsitration destroyed on the day he left office, but a court order prevented it. Bush Sr. made a deal with Don Wilson, the Archivist of the United States, to have his computer and email records declared private property, and they were all carted off in rented trucks on the day he left office. Wilson later became head of Bush's presidential library in Texas.

Clinton actually obtained a court ording stating that the records of the National Security Council were not subject to decalssification and FOIA requests because it was not a governmental organization!!!!! Not a governmental organization even though it was established by the National Security Act of 1947!!!!

Even on other controversial issues like the JFK Assassination Records Review Board, the FBI and CIA dragged their feet for years before releasing the four MILLION documents they had in their possession on this subject-that's a four with six zeroes after it, and those are just the ones we know about. And even those they went through each one line by line before finally releasing them, and this was when they had been ordered to do so by Congress.

NASA even sent out an internal memo on "Suggestions for Anticipating Requests under FOIA" which offered guidelines on how to "render the information significantly less meaningful."

I can think of many other examples like these. We're talking about people who are supposed to be working for us, yet most of them seem to have forgotten it--if indeed they ever knew it in the first place.

My link

So all in all, given this culture of secrecy, do I think the full story about UFOs has been disclosed? No way, not by a long shot.

Edited August 22, 2010 by mcmchugh99

[sinewave]

General

In a thread where I mention credible witnesses on ground in the air (pilots and astronauts), incredible speeds, maneuvers, multiple radars showing same phenomenon witnessed, metallic craft etc, you really really really shouldn't even MENTION kites or kids toys... seriously...

A pilot knows something HIGHLY irregular flying at supersonic speeds from a kite....

Tell me it's a natural plasma phenomenon and let's investigate that, by all means, but if you are thinking of toys, you're really not getting the UFO incidents I started this thread about in the first place...

The accuracy of visual perceptions of speed depend on accurate estimates of size and distance of the observed object. This can be very hard to judge in open air. Given the fact that air currents can be very different at high altitudes than they are at lower ones, balloons, kites, and the like can appear to be moving very rapidly depending on the viewer's frame of reference so they can not be dismissed out of hand just because they have no propulsion systems.

A lot of you are arguing that these things, even with my criteria list, may be weather phenomenon when what I am really asking is, 'why, when you have sightings, with all these listed criteria, happen more than once, you are still really against considering that they very likely may be ET after all.

[You see I'm asking why the skepticism in the face of this evidence. Why not say, 'well, it looks about 50/50, or whatever odds you subscribe to... it's the blatant - NO WAY ones, I don't get...]

We really understand very little about some of the behaviors of the upper atmospheric layers. There are phenomena that have been going on right over our heads forever that we did not notice very much if at all until we started using RADAR and other technologies to monitor the skies. This all started in the early 40's just prior to the major outbreak of UFO sightings around 1947. Making the leap to the ETH when so little is known about these high altitude phenomena is just plain irresponsible.

@ badeskov - Firstly - thanks, so much, for contributing!

Now, about these plasma.... Wouldn't they appear irregular on the radar?

Wouldn't they be UNuniform in shape/size etc?

[edit: I read the bit about shape but again, this wouldn't be consistent or constant or the norm]

I read what you wrote about their 'behaviour' but this could only be effectively concluded by studying the actual flight-paths of the human pilot and the anomaly in each case and who did what and when....

From what I have read, they don't seem to be natural phenomenon (even plasma, reacting to simple physical phenomenon like a radar ping or switching radar modes etc)

Keep in mind too - the plasma phenomenon would account for the glowing type UFOs, not the ones which look like, say a metalic disc...

Oh... ok, I just read what you wrote regarding metallic colouring - getting ahead of myself...

I won't presume to speak for Badeskov but as he said, these atmospheric phenomena can appear to be solid objects both visually and on RADAR. RADAR is not particularly good at determining the shape of an object as much as the apparent size and even that is not totally reliable. The shape and composition of an aircraft can mask its true size. Stealth technologies have clearly demonstrated that phenomenon.

*LOL*, you wrote: "we don't know what energy sources are responsible for their creation" <-- It's the ET's craft's propulsion system!!!

I know what you mean but, this seems contradictory: "There have been lots of theories, but none has really been validated yet. We just know it happens. Why and how? We simply don't know. But in the end, it is basic physics, albeit with an unhand-ably large amount of variables. "

Let's not forget that only a fraction of the sun's energy that reaches Earth makes it to the ground. The magnetosphere and other parts of the upper atmosphere deflect or absorb enormous amounts of energy. It is not unreasonable to assume that some of that activity beyond the Auroras is directly observable.

What all of us, who are interested in uncovering the UFO mystery, should never forget to investigate is the likelihood of UFOs being secret (perhaps even privately built) human craft.

I suspect there is a great deal of truth in that statement, my friend. I have said it before but early version of what became the SR-71 flew in 1962. Some really cool engineering has been revealed since then but I wonder what we are really capable of doing that has not been revealed.

[Space Commander Travis]

What all of us, who are interested in uncovering the UFO mystery, should never forget to investigate is the likelihood of UFOs being secret (perhaps even privately built) human craft.

If they fly according to the principles by which we believe that an aircraft should, then they might be (advanced military projects, at least, the secret privately built craft hypothesis seems a bit too Gerry Anderson). But if they really can bend the laws of physics or ignore them altogether, then I don't really see how it can be any more likely that they're made by humankind than that they're extraterrestrial.

[booNyzarC]

I think there's a one hour limit on edits.

Thanks for confirming. I didn't time it precisely, but I kept returning to this post just to see if the edit button would magically disappear. And it did, prior to anyone posting a response (which debunked that hypothesis).

[booNyzarC]

NASA even sent out an internal memo on "Suggestions for Anticipating Requests under FOIA" which offered guidelines on how to "render the information significantly less meaningful."

The problem with the published materials that try to create the illusion of conspiracy is that they mis-quote things like this, and take statements out of context. The memo that this author of yours refers to appears to be published in full over here:

The full document

The section that you are parroting the mis-quote from (and I'm not saying that you mis-quoted it by the way, but that your source is deceiving you with blatant manipulation of documented evidence.) is this:

Use yellow stick-ons or other similar attachable tabs to annotate personal copies of documents you wish to retain. Annotations on a document make the annotated copy a separate document potentially subject to disclosure. If retained, yellow stick-ons would also be subject to FOIA disclosure. However since there is no obligation under FOIA to provide documents in any particular order or relationship to each other, furnishing out of context copies of stick-ons can render any information released significantly less meaningful. In this regard, printing rather than writing in script also generally makes it harder to assign authorship (and context) to a particular note or document.

Now, assuming that this document is actually genuine... which I can't confirm or deny as this is the first I've heard of it... even if it is, when taken in full context of the document, I believe that it can be summarized as follows:

"Hey guys, keep in mind that everything you write down might make it out to John-Q public, so make sure that you are being accurate and that you are documenting what you truly intend to document."

Which suggests to me the following addendum which can be read in-between the lines:

"Because honestly guys, you know how these things can get twisted around by conspiracy theorists to suit their own needs. So unless you want your documentation to propagate lies and paranoia, be very careful."

That's my take anyway...

[booNyzarC]

Furthermore... were I to blatantly mis-quote you as follows:

So all in all... [break] I think the full story about UFOs has been disclosed[break]

A great many people might just take my word for it, and consider that your opinion was that our government was being straight up with us. Indeed, someone who just joined the forum today and came to the most recent post might read that and think, "hey, that mcm guy trusts the government!"

Until of course they read on...

What a truly investigative person does with this kind of thing is verify it. The many skeptics on this forum (which you've decided to ignore) would read that, go back to your original post, and rapidly correct my abuse of your original quote. And they would be doing you and every other reader a fantastic service, by washing away the deceptive lie that I had created and showing me as the true charlatan that I was. (note: I'm not though, I'm just using this as an example...)

For the record, I have the utmost respect for you mcm and recognize that you have collected a huge database of information. But please don't ignore the even larger database of other information which is verifiable, logical, and accurately cited. It is very hard to come to the realization that someone has tricked you. That is, in fact, the real source of your voracity against your perceived government conspiracy. What if it is the promulgators of the conspiracy theory themselves that are the true deceivers? How voracious would your condemnation of them be?

On an aside note:

I find it ironic that fringe sights advertise with catch phrases related to the Matrix, indicating that the rest of the public is held under the control of our evil government, when honestly - when I recognized these people for who they were, by verifying the lies that they attempt to push with half-stories, misinterpretation, and mis-quoting... I felt very much like Neo waking up from the dream.

Come down the rabbit hole with us mcm. I know that you are tired of being lied to.

[badeskov]

General

In a thread where I mention credible witnesses on ground in the air (pilots and astronauts), incredible speeds, maneuvers, multiple radars showing same phenomenon witnessed, metallic craft etc, you really really really shouldn't even MENTION kites or kids toys... seriously...

A pilot knows something HIGHLY irregular flying at supersonic speeds from a kite....

Tell me it's a natural plasma phenomenon and let's investigate that, by all means, but if you are thinking of toys, you're really not getting the UFO incidents I started this thread about in the first place...

I was speaking in general terms, but as Sine mentioned distance can be incredibly hard to gauge and thus velocity. Thus even a kid's toy can perform some seemingly outer-worldly maneuvers. I kite with a couple of glow sticks attached at dusk, that can be quite the sight. At dusk we often have what is called sundowners, which are winds that come at dusk time - perfect time for flying kites off the mountains here and since it is getting dark you obviously need some light so you can see the thing. Perfectly logical - and quite the sight to take in

A lot of you are arguing that these things, even with my criteria list, may be weather phenomenon when what I am really asking is, 'why, when you have sightings, with all these listed criteria, happen more than once, you are still really against considering that they very likely may be ET after all.

[You see I'm asking why the skepticism in the face of this evidence. Why not say, 'well, it looks about 50/50, or whatever odds you subscribe to... it's the blatant - NO WAY ones, I don't get...]

I am not arguing anything. I am merely pointing out what certain phenomena can do and then you have to make your own choice with respect to what you find the most credible explanation. Although I will still point out that I think some of your assumptions are not founded as well as they could have been.

@ badeskov - Firstly - thanks, so much, for contributing!

My pleasure, any time. Again, my apologies for coming in so late and responding to a post several days old, but my time was limited.

Now, about these plasma.... Wouldn't they appear irregular on the radar?

Wouldn't they be UNuniform in shape/size etc?

[edit: I read the bit about shape but again, this wouldn't be consistent or constant or the norm]

They will be no more irregular than, say, an airplane. A plasma will behave as a big metallic "blob" and a given radar return will be a surface reflection and not a distributed return. A given radar's ability distinguish "features" on a given target is determined by two factors, radar frequency and modulation/chirp of the emitted signals. From the radar return one can then derive a number of parameters pertaining to the target in question, however, a plasma will not be significantly different from what an airplane would look like, just behaving rather peculiar.

I read what you wrote about their 'behaviour' but this could only be effectively concluded by studying the actual flight-paths of the human pilot and the anomaly in each case and who did what and when....

From what I have read, they don't seem to be natural phenomenon (even plasma, reacting to simple physical phenomenon like a radar ping or switching radar modes etc)

Keep in mind too - the plasma phenomenon would account for the glowing type UFOs, not the ones which look like, say a metalic disc...

Oh... ok, I just read what you wrote regarding metallic colouring - getting ahead of myself...

*LOL*, you wrote: "we don't know what energy sources are responsible for their creation" <-- It's the ET's craft's propulsion system!!!

However outlandish, it could be an explanation - i.e. that ET is using some kind of plasma technology for some reason or other. Who knows? I certainly don't

I know what you mean but, this seems contradictory: "There have been lots of theories, but none has really been validated yet. We just know it happens. Why and how? We simply don't know. But in the end, it is basic physics, albeit with an unhand-ably large amount of variables. "

No, it is actually not contradictory. It is basic physics. We know how plasma can behave and why they do so. Plasma has been extensively studied lab because they have many applications, so we have a very good idea of their inner workings and capabilities. But what we don't know yet are the circumstances that create them in the atmosphere. We can just observe that it happens and that plasma generally behave as they do in the lab. But many theories have been put forth, it is just incredibly hard to do any experimental verification as the atmosphere is not a controlled environment where we know exactly when and where it will happens. It'll happen at some random place and time and we can just hope that we have some data gathering platform somewhere that is lucky enough to be at the right time and place when it happens. And particularly with the increase in orbital data gathering platforms we have learned a lot just in the last 20 years. Just have a look at elves and sprites which we didn't what were before we were able to measurements from space (the shuttle, if memory serves). And as Sine correctly pointed out, there is a lot of energy deposited in the atmosphere from space (sun and cosmic radiation). So lots of energy floating around to make some rather amazing effects.

Side note:

I'd really like you (badeskov) to get Luke Fortune's book on Plasma Propulsion system patents and see what you think of them so you could let me know if any of them are viable.

I'd be more than happy to have a look at that book. I'll see if I can find around here somewhere.

What all of us, who are interested in uncovering the UFO mystery, should never forget to investigate is the likelihood of UFOs being secret (perhaps even privately built) human craft.

That is one of the many other explanations possible.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[mcmchugh99]

The Stanford, Kentucky abduction case, 1976. One that seems to have been long forgotten but it was big news at the time, and thoroughly investigated.

My link

[mcmchugh99]

Peter Gersten on the UFO cover-up, who sued the US governmnent and won the release of hundreds of UFO documents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUXD5ksEx_o&feature=related

And Clifford Stone on Project Moon Dust and Blue Fly, which weren't always "routine"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlHpgfoIogw&NR=1

Edited August 23, 2010 by mcmchugh99

[mcmchugh99]

And this video mentions a Nazi interest in space travel and disc-shaped aircraft, based on UFO reports and pictures than von Braun and other German scientists were aware of. Some of those very early UFO pictures from Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 1930s look real, as do some of the German experimental craft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKsxoy8twFo&feature=related

[Paxus]

Hey sinewave,

No offense but the balloon/kite thing is really reaching!

Say what you will but I feel pretty safe in the assumption that you're not going to get expert ground witnesses, pilot sightings and radar sightings nore are you going to have pilots intercepting them and mistaking them for alien spaceships!

Regarding little-known upper atmospheric layer phenomenon - Be that as it may, it wouldn't account for incidents where the sightings have originated right near ground level...

All this talk of bizarre weather phenomenon and plasma(meteorlogical) sounds like people really reaching and stretching to explain UFOs.

Don't get me wrong, it must be considered... nay, 'investigated', yet I want to point out how it does seem like someone who is getting desperate to debunk the ETH. (N.B> Not for single sightings - I mean this in the context of ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept).

You say making the leap to ETH when so little is known about these high altitude phenomena is just plain irresponsible....

HUH?

How is it irresponsible?! I'm not frightening anyone, I'm not causing panic or endangering anyone by discussing a possibility.

Also, as I said, MANY of these sightings start BELOW 5000ft AGL!

Regarding what you said about secret aircraft, what do you think of the possibility that some may be privately built, owned and flown?

If they fly according to the principles by which we believe that an aircraft should, then they might be (advanced military projects, at least, the secret privately built craft hypothesis seems a bit too Gerry Anderson). But if they really can bend the laws of physics or ignore them altogether, then I don't really see how it can be any more likely that they're made by humankind than that they're extraterrestrial.

Hey 747,

Are you saying you think it's more liekly that exotic propulsion aircraft are alien than human?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So has no one found any more interesting cases where we have the criteria: Ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mcmchugh99, have you stopped ignoring people or do I have to kill that poor puppy?

Incidentally, while not really on topic with the criterea I'm curious about, the Stanford, Kentucky abduction case is really compelling and naturally I'm curious as to how skeptics treat this case too, but perhaps a seperate thread would be appropriate to discuss that one case...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

badeskov

Mate, not you too with the kite theories!?

Seriously - when Jhonny Public looks up from his backyard or a private pilot who's flying at 9500ft and has never even thought about UFOs sees something odd, FAIR ENOUGH. However, I'm talking about Ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept.

I am not arguing anything. I am merely pointing out what certain phenomena can do and then you have to make your own choice with respect to what you find the most credible explanation. Although I will still point out that I think some of your assumptions are not founded as well as they could have been.

Yeh, I know and as I said before, I appreciate it.

My comment about arguing wasn't really directed to you. In fact, 'arguing' wasn't my main point, my main point was how can people OUTRIGHT deny ETH in cases where you have ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept.{My thought-process is, when you have all those criterea, wouldn't that be the time that even a skeptic would stop and think, 'Hey, you know what, it IS possible'}

I still think a great deal of people are entirely missunderstanding me, I'm NOT saying, 'why don't people believe these cases are ET', I'm saying, 'How can they completely DENY them!' Also, NORE am I suggesting they should accept them, I'm suggesting that they should consider them a POSSIBILTY.

Likewise, those of you who DO accept the possibility, I'm not talking to you either

Thanks for explaining radar ops.

Re: Exotic propulsion systems and the plasma patents (for propulsion) - Buy the book from ufohowto.com

If you won't buy it, maybe I'll buy it for you, or PayPal the $$$ to you.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Paxus

[Space Commander Travis]

Hey 747,

Are you saying you think it's more liekly that exotic propulsion aircraft are alien than human?

What I'm thinking of is the cases where aircraft or craft or objects would seem to be able to reqrite the laws of physics, or at least get round them (or would seem to be able to from reports). People often say that it's not possible to travel at hypersonic speeds, go round corners, go up and down and round and round or whatever they seem to do, because the laws of physics (and our good friend Albert) say that that's impossible. But then people, it seems to me, seem to go on to say "who knows what technology we might have developed in secret", usually quoting the SR-71 as proof of our advances in technology. But all aircraft, even secret aircraft, have to obey those same laws of physics. The SR-71 still had to obey the laws of physics. People seem to surmise about secretly developed technology that would enable us to do the things that they say is evidence against extraterrestrial visitation because we think it's impossible. People seem to want it both ways sometimes. They seem to refuse to speculate about possible extraterrestrials developing advanced technology, because that's unscientific, but they then seem to be quite happy to speculate that we might have developed advanced technology.

[badeskov]

What I'm thinking of is the cases where aircraft or craft or objects would seem to be able to reqrite the laws of physics, or at least get round them (or would seem to be able to from reports). People often say that it's not possible to travel at hypersonic speeds, go round corners, go up and down and round and round or whatever they seem to do, because the laws of physics (and our good friend Albert) say that that's impossible. But then people, it seems to me, seem to go on to say "who knows what technology we might have developed in secret", usually quoting the SR-71 as proof of our advances in technology. But all aircraft, even secret aircraft, have to obey those same laws of physics. The SR-71 still had to obey the laws of physics. People seem to surmise about secretly developed technology that would enable us to do the things that they say is evidence against extraterrestrial visitation because we think it's impossible. People seem to want it both ways sometimes. They seem to refuse to speculate about possible extraterrestrials developing advanced technology, because that's unscientific, but they then seem to be quite happy to speculate that we might have developed advanced technology.

Hi 747,

I think that is a misunderstanding, if you don't mind me rudely to interject myself here. I don't think any of the proponents of the advanced terrestrial technology hypothesis are arguing that we have developed technology that would put good ole Albert to shame, rather the opposite. I think it is more along the lines of sightings of strange crafts (i.e., secret tech) that are unknown and thus unrecognizable to the general public combined with the inability to derive distance and velocity of a given object. That is not to say that people are fools, but rather to emphasize how difficult it actually is to ascertain range and velocity without solid reference points.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

Hey sinewave,

No offense but the balloon/kite thing is really reaching!

Say what you will but I feel pretty safe in the assumption that you're not going to get expert ground witnesses, pilot sightings and radar sightings nore are you going to have pilots intercepting them and mistaking them for alien spaceships!

I obviously cannot speak for Sine, but I will allow myself to answer here. Why is it reaching? Have you ever seen a kite at a distance with glow-sticks attached to it at high level. You have no means whatsoever to gauge distance and thus size and velocity. It can be rather strange to watch and somebody not having seen it before can easily make conclusions that are wrong.

Regarding little-known upper atmospheric layer phenomenon - Be that as it may, it wouldn't account for incidents where the sightings have originated right near ground level...

Said phenomena also exist at ground level.

All this talk of bizarre weather phenomenon and plasma(meteorlogical) sounds like people really reaching and stretching to explain UFOs.

Don't get me wrong, it must be considered... nay, 'investigated', yet I want to point out how it does seem like someone who is getting desperate to debunk the ETH. (N.B> Not for single sightings - I mean this in the context of ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept).

It is not a question of debunking as I see it, as only bunk can be debunked and I don't consider the ETH to be bunk (although the way some people promote it makes it sound like that). As you correctly states as the ETH is a possibility it has to be investigated and assigned possibilities. But to be blunt, having to chose between a terrestrial phenomenon that we know exists or ET guests that we have no proof of, I lean towards the terrestrial explanation. That doesn't mean that I do not keep the ET angle open, I just find it highly unlikely compared to other explanations.

You say making the leap to ETH when so little is known about these high altitude phenomena is just plain irresponsible....

HUH?

How is it irresponsible?! I'm not frightening anyone, I'm not causing panic or endangering anyone by discussing a possibility.

Also, as I said, MANY of these sightings start BELOW 5000ft AGL!

I think that was meant in another way, but I'll let Sine answer to that

Regarding what you said about secret aircraft, what do you think of the possibility that some may be privately built, owned and flown?

Actually, that is a great question. I know one fellow that loves to build his own contraptions. Admittedly, to the best of my knowledge he has never flown very high or very far (probably a good thing), but that is not to say that others have not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So has no one found any more interesting cases where we have the criteria: Ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is still anecdotal evidence based on a highly subjective analysis.

mcmchugh99, have you stopped ignoring people or do I have to kill that poor puppy?

Incidentally, while not really on topic with the criterea I'm curious about, the Stanford, Kentucky abduction case is really compelling and naturally I'm curious as to how skeptics treat this case too, but perhaps a seperate thread would be appropriate to discuss that one case...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't kill the puppy - not worth it

badeskov

Mate, not you too with the kite theories!?

I am not trying to push the kite hypothesis onto you. As mentioned before, I prefer not to push anything, all I can offer are explanations and you yourself have to judge the validity of them. It is more an example of how difficult it can actually be to gauge the nature of something you have no idea of what is, how far away it is and how fast it is. But you seem like a smart guy, so I think you understand what I mean

Seriously - when Jhonny Public looks up from his backyard or a private pilot who's flying at 9500ft and has never even thought about UFOs sees something odd, FAIR ENOUGH. However, I'm talking about Ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept.

Sure, but data has so far been incredibly insufficient. And I have yet to see any case where you had radar tracking data, visual confirmation and pilot intercept. They have all been disparate.

Yeh, I know and as I said before, I appreciate it.

My comment about arguing wasn't really directed to you.

i know, sorry

In fact, 'arguing' wasn't my main point, my main point was how can people OUTRIGHT deny ETH in cases where you have ground sighting, pilot sighting, radar sighting(by more than one scope/station) and pilot intercept.{My thought-process is, when you have all those criterea, wouldn't that be the time that even a skeptic would stop and think, 'Hey, you know what, it IS possible'}

i know, but we still have the problem of finding said cases. Do you have a specific case in mind? Frankly, I cannot come up with one where you cannot question the data brought forth, but I would be very happy to look into any case you bring my attention to.

I still think a great deal of people are entirely missunderstanding me, I'm NOT saying, 'why don't people believe these cases are ET', I'm saying, 'How can they completely DENY them!' Also, NORE am I suggesting they should accept them, I'm suggesting that they should consider them a POSSIBILTY.

I think most are accepting the ETH as a possibility, but the animosity you see is colored by the amount of fraud you generally see in this field. It is sad, but also understandable in my point of view.

Likewise, those of you who DO accept the possibility, I'm not talking to you either

Thanks for explaining radar ops.

My pleasure. Happens to be part of my work and something I rather enjoy

Re: Exotic propulsion systems and the plasma patents (for propulsion) - Buy the book from ufohowto.com

If you won't buy it, maybe I'll buy it for you, or PayPal the $$ to you.

Oh, I can buy it no worries. Sadly, it is more a question of time. I hardly have the time to read the news paper in the morning due to project deadlines these days But I'll get there Pax, not to worry!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Paxus]

Hey badeskov,

RE: "Have you ever seen a kite at a distance with glow-sticks attached to it at high level."

You're not listening to me at all are you?

Ground, air, radar and pilot intercept! If a pilot intercepted a kite, then he would either identify it as such or he would ID something else. Hence the kite, toy or balloon sightings don't count for this thread!

Please re-read my OP, and what I've been reiterating again and again about my criteria and what exactly I am asking of skeptics.

Plasma phenomena exist at ground level?

How convenient.

I've never seen them. Oh well, I'll have to take your word for it

RE: 'building your own' - the Luke Fortune guy I've mentioned several times will be building his own saucer. (He's the one with all the books which are collections of patents of exotic propulsion systems).

Can't wait to see what comes of it.

i know, but we still have the problem of finding said cases. Do you have a specific case in mind? Frankly, I cannot come up with one where you cannot question the data brought forth, but I would be very happy to look into any case you bring my attention to.

Not yet (aside from the one i started the thread with), but they must be out there because I have read several accounts of fighters being scrambled to investigate UFO. Of those, several have engaged the UFO in question.

When these encounters (pilot intercepts) result in the pilot being convinced that he's chasing an alien craft, these are the ones that have me scratching my noggin, saying, 'Well, maybe 'they' are here afterall'.

RE: Buying the 'book' - Well it won't take up much of your time because you don't need to read it from cover to cover, since it's just a collection of patents, you can just pick out the ones you want to investigate.

[badeskov]

Hey badeskov,

RE: "Have you ever seen a kite at a distance with glow-sticks attached to it at high level."

You're not listening to me at all are you?

Ground, air, radar and pilot intercept! If a pilot intercepted a kite, then he would either identify it as such or he would ID something else. Hence the kite, toy or balloon sightings don't count for this thread!

Please re-read my OP, and what I've been reiterating again and again about my criteria and what exactly I am asking of skeptics.

Yes, I actually do listen to you and do read your posts. The problem is falling back on the data describing the various cases. Somehow the data is always, and I mean always, questionable. And that is the problem I have!

Plasma phenomena exist at ground level?

How convenient.

Have a look at St. Elmos's fire. While not exactly flitting around in the sky it is still a plasma phenomena, and one that happens at ground level. And as also mentioned earlier, I can tell you how to make your own plasmoids in your microwave, although I do not recommend it it given that the trick can leave burn marks or even fry your microwave by injecting energy back into the magnetron driving your oven.

I've never seen them. Oh well, I'll have to take your word for it

Neither have I since they are so rare.

RE: 'building your own' - the Luke Fortune guy I've mentioned several times will be building his own saucer. (He's the one with all the books which are collections of patents of exotic propulsion systems).

Can't wait to see what comes of it.

Not yet (aside from the one i started the thread with), but they must be out there because I have read several accounts of fighters being scrambled to investigate UFO. Of those, several have engaged the UFO in question.

When these encounters (pilot intercepts) result in the pilot being convinced that he's chasing an alien craft, these are the ones that have me scratching my noggin, saying, 'Well, maybe 'they' are here afterall'.

RE: Buying the 'book' - Well it won't take up much of your time because you don't need to read it from cover to cover, since it's just a collection of patents, you can just pick out the ones you want to investigate.

I'll look him up

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Paxus]

That may well be the case, but that still doesn't mean you can bring up the possibility of UFOs being kites or balloons when fighters are the ones intercepting them!

Plasma phenomenon (natural) are so rare...

Hmmm doesn't this imply that we are seeing aliens then?...

If the plasma phenomenon are so rare, then when UFO are seen somewhere in the world, probably everyday, they can't all be natural weather phenomena. sooooo.....

No need to look up =- Luke Fortune = ufohowto.com

[Oppono Astos]

Paxus, you still misunderstand the entire purpose of the patent system to protect and exploit commercial IP - if you want to keep real exotic inventions secret you don't publish them in the public domain.

If any of these patents had covered workable exotic technology the patent holders would be making money from them - even for filings of not-yet granted patents. If anyone can build a craft with exotic propulsion from one of these current patent filings for $100K, they'd better budget 100x that for the subsequent law suits and damages for IP infringement.

[mcmchugh99]

One of the most famous cases of the type you're looking for was the RB-47 incident during the big UFO wave of 1957, which tracked a UFO going 9-10,000 MPH. I don't believe this case was ever satisfactorily explained.

This is one link about it:

My link

And here's a link to an even earlier radar-visual classic over Japan in 1948:

My link

Another one from Wisconsin in 1978:

My link

[mcmchugh99]

This is a link to the JAL 1628 radar-visual UFO incident over Alaska, another one that has never really been explained:

My link

As Dr. Hynek said, these kinds of cases are very rare and make up only 1-2% of all UFO reports.

[Paxus]

Thanks mcm! - will check them out soon.

Good points Shadow_Wolf but how can you be sure of any of those assumptions.

Let's say you are an inventor and you come up with the plans for one of these things. Now, i know some things about inventors you may not. For starters most of them are not good with money - I mean in the sense that they usually aren't good entrepreneurs. A lot of them never see any money for their efforts because they are too paranoid to actually show their inventions to anyone. A lot of them are plain weirdos.

Anywho... What I'm getting at is that you may have guys out there who planned these things on paper and never did anything else.

Likewise, you may have some out there who are flying their inventions around like crazy, laughing their crazy arses off at us who are discussing whether or not they are aliens!

And this is just the ones who did file patents.

As to law suits - the books are divided with a large percentage of them being past expiry, so you don't have to worry about being sued if you build an old one

You just down't know Shadow. Anything is possible and weirder things have happened.

[Paxus]

On my first proof read of one of mcm's examples I find it interesting that the 'bogey' followed the RB-47.

Would 'following' be a characteristic of meteorological plasma phenomena?

Oh nice work mcm!

This case has visual sighting by at least two people, has detection via equipment that detects electromagnetic signals on the aircraft, it has ground radar sighting and aircraft intercept.

[EDIT] I've now read both cases and again ask the question, how could anyone out-right deny the likelyhood of UFO being ET when faced with cases like these?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Paxus

[Space Commander Travis]

Thanks mcm! - will check them out soon.

Good points Shadow_Wolf but how can you be sure of any of those assumptions.

Let's say you are an inventor and you come up with the plans for one of these things. Now, i know some things about inventors you may not. For starters most of them are not good with money - I mean in the sense that they usually aren't good entrepreneurs. A lot of them never see any money for their efforts because they are too paranoid to actually show their inventions to anyone. A lot of them are plain weirdos.

Anywho... What I'm getting at is that you may have guys out there who planned these things on paper and never did anything else.

Likewise, you may have some out there who are flying their inventions around like crazy, laughing their crazy arses off at us who are discussing whether or not they are aliens!

And this is just the ones who did file patents.

As to law suits - the books are divided with a large percentage of them being past expiry, so you don't have to worry about being sued if you build an old one

You just down't know Shadow. Anything is possible and weirder things have happened.

One thing i suspect probably is true about inventors is that very few of them actually do conform to the Dr Frankenstein/Emmett Brown image of popular fiction, and personally I find the idea of mega-rich mad genii flying out of secret underground bases with their secret gravity-defying craft, unlicenced and unauthorised by any aviation authority, just too Thunderbirds/007 circa Roger Moore era, I really do.

[Paxus]

*LOL* 747 - Agreed but I assure you many inventors are awful at business and I was simply telling Shadow that just because patents are filed doesn't mean the inventor made a prototype, or sold it, or is prepared to fight someone else who does... I was just saying that basically we know nothing except that there are a tonne of people (past and present) who have a tonne of ideas about disc shaped aircraft which use very exotic propulsion systems.

Oh, and according to Mr Fortune, you don't have to be a genius or rich to make some of these things