Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[mcrom901]

sorry dp... connection reset

Edited April 28, 2011 by mcrom901

[psyche101]

Well, like I said a while back (pages and pages back now, of course) I think these "big" cases are just distractions. They just serve as vehicles for, as we have all seen, endless argument, and provide ample opportunity for people to dismiss the whole phenomenon, just because five or six well known incidents are probably something earthly, or PLASMA at most. But looking at it from this position rather seems to assume that these few well known cases are the UFO phenomenonon, so it can all be dismissed. This is completely misappropriating- is that the word? mis something. misconstruing? Misinterpreting? Ignoring. Let's settle for that. Ignoring the vast number of reports that are really the bread and butter of the whole phenomenon. All these well known cases are irelevances, really, if anyone was asking me.

... and besides, like I also said a few pages back, I'm still on the fence about a few of those.

I am glad you brought it up again, once again I am reminded of the Twinning memo and it's message to do just this. Imagine if we are all still being led by the nose after all this time whist certain dignitaries attempt to work this out, I think I would find that quite amusing.

Although, after all this time it would seem strange that we have advanced no further in knowledge than what we had 60 years ago.

[mcrom901]

Although, after all this time it would seem strange that we have advanced no further in knowledge than what we had 60 years ago.

houdi mate

now that's where the black budget comes in...

any chances of tax refunds?

[psyche101]

so which one are we gonna use to cut down on the margin of error re the altitude....

?

btw... what camera was "K" using?

This paper might compliment that line of thinking as well, when comparing the human eye to a camera.

The Limits of Human Vision

[psyche101]

houdi mate

now that's where the black budget comes in...

any chances of tax refunds?

Gidday Mate

Ahh as per 747400's ideal, is the budget funding research or development?

LOL, I do not want to see the Government make that claim, we would all be in for a whole new GFC.

Cheers.

[mcrom901]

This paper might compliment that line of thinking as well, when comparing the human eye to a camera.

The Limits of Human Vision

thanks...

[Paxus]

Remember how I said that because of all the pointless back and forth arguing (when it's CLEAR you won't ever see eye to eye) the Phoenix lights AIRCRAFT explination has been all but missed?

Well can I please point this out AGAIN?

Perhaps Hazzard can make a rule for his thread than any one case should not take up more than 3 pages of just arguing?

I dunno, but this is getting as annoying as the Roswell argument that wasted everyone's time, patience, bandwidth and nerves....

P.S. Thanks 747 for pointing it out again.

NOW, to MY POINT:

This should be a lesson to all of us.

See how anyone can CREATE any explination they like if they work hard enough at it?

You guys have very cleverly 'proven' that they were flares when really they could have been aircraft (seen very clearly by an astronomer with a telescope)......

BY lesson, I mean, don't make up your mind what you believe and then set about proving it.

You should always just investigate OBJECTIVELY.

What has been done here (by more than one person) is that 'flares' was decided and then and explination/proof was built around that assumption.

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<SNIP>

Maybe the aircraft were too small, maybe they were a weird shape.... maybe they were remote controlled...

but that's a non-issue... for instance, imagine a crop duster without a transponder flying around an airport...

How is it a non-issue when clearly that would explain no radar contact?

=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW TOPIC:

How's Gilfaer's story for good evidence for ET visitation?

(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=177786)

(http://www.marcjager.com/gilfaer.html)

Edited April 28, 2011 by Paxus

[Paxus]

Nah mate, you do not stretch my patience, just time does.

My mistake, but yet again we should be looking at the lowest common denominator. For some reason, this sort of nonsense is allowed to continue. One wonders if he pays extra for the privilege.

You will not be disappointed

We seem to be looking very hard to qualify another intelligence, would it not be good idea to open up the parameters a little more to include good old earth?

No, and you should know better, I can do the same thing with Earthly explinations and often do (right here in UM) - besides my first part of the bit you're refering to was simply, 'I don't know and have never claimed to know all the answers'. Of course, when asked for possible ET explinations, I will rattle some off. This doesn't mean I'm single minded, in fact it seems to be me trying to remind others here to stop making an assumption first and building an explination around the assumption...

I think that puts said scientist into the pop culture bracket. Scientists are human just like anyone, and have interests and influences. My little sister is a practising scientist. I know she is often wrong about general matters as her focus is quite specific, but she can answer any question on cancer admirably.

I do believe personal preference is the only way one can arrive at the ETH, as there is nothing to base a comparison on other than imagination. However, just like the ETH on land, USO' I feel also much have a multitude of explanations, and perhaps more so when one consideres that bioluminescence is a part of life in the Ocean. Seeing a glowing object in the Ocean is a very regular occurrence.

This is just an absolutely ineffective explination for the close-up, metallic (with features) objects which good(credible) witnesses are seeing! Read every case in the waterufo site and you'll see what I mean - your explinations don't fit.

With so many clear sightings which would fit my (and quillious') critereon (see my signature) the question shouldn't even be, 'was there something unusual there or not' but 'what IS that unusual thing?'.

Association by creation. What I am saying is that a large majority of zealots think both of these things can only mean ET. Obviously not all do. We do not know that any at all do. And the ETH crowd is IMHO so far off the mark that we can pretty much throw away the ETH where UFO's are concerned. I honestly do not think a fresh approach would be detrimental, nor time wasting. It is not like the ETH is going anywhere at any pace.

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is but I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

As long as you don't discount X because you don't believe in Y and some people say X always happens with Y

That is only because you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that I would be lying if I said a 72 Meter tall purple elephant with 2 trunks ate my fruit trees last night. From this perspective, Earth visiting ET and said 72 meter tall purple elephant are in the same boat.

That's true but ultimately irrelevant. If you're going to investigate something, if you want to do it properly, you shouldn't rule out possibilities that haven't been disproven.

Military project is the only one that fits the bill I reckon. I do believe that I logically questioned shallow water ET to an unanswerable point. Why can we not possibly fathom the outcomes? We only have a pool of one to go by, and whilst ET Might be very different, it does not mean that intelligence, or goals of preservation is universally completely different. Should a species attain intelligence via some similar evolution process, it should be at least comparable. I think it is too far to just go - well, just beyond us, do not even try to think about it. We have left out own solar system, I think that gives us the right to speculate intelligently. Surely an intelligent race uses some logic, or they would not be all that intelligent.

I cannot fathom the getting to know us ideal, if they do not have a idea after all this time they must be anything but intelligent! Some of the recollections in the link you offered (and most USO proponents hypothesis) go back for centuries.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some funky military USOs.

As to the other stuff (above), I won't go there, other than just for fun, because we simply don't know and I think it's a mistake to make assumptions...

I do not think people are deluded to have seen a UFO, or a USO for that matter, I think they are deluding themselves into believing what they see is ET. That is pop culture entirely, as we have nothing to base such speculations upon. I still see Bioluminescence as the main cause for USO's but touching on that briefly, and going by the link offered ( I relise you did not endorse it, but as an example), many of the reported USO's did not enter the water, but sucked water up, or ran a hose into a water body. I would not consider such a USO?

Doesn't matter what you call it - UFO associated with water... Sucking it up (which has been seen many times) is clearly a function ascribed to a machine, not plasma or weather or algae...

You talk about pop-culture as a reason for the ETH but seem to discount all those witnesses who's FIRST assumptions are always Earthly until several things happen that don't fit the bill! Haven't you read all the accounts where a witness says something like, "I thought it was a helicopter untill....", or "I thought I was looking at a reflection of the moon on the water until....." or a combination, as a normal intelligent person is trying to work out what they are seeing.

You make it sound like everyone who's speculated ET is some silly impressionable twit, when clearly hundreds of them aren't!

You also keep mentioning things like weather, algae, plasma etc but I'm not talking about those kind of sightings! I'm talking about the ones that fit my criterion and they couldn't possibly be those things. They are craft and then the question clearly isn't about perseption or pop culture or meteorlogical phenomenon but 'WHAT ARE THESE WEIRD MACHINES'?

I do think it would be quite a challenge, we are a diverse and inquisitive species, and I feel rather underestimated. I do not think that imagining some technology, or motives that we cannot think of is a satisfactory answer. And my main point is that these things burst out at beaches, and close to shorelines, as the maps at that link confirm. To hide, and then burst out in full view just makes no sense, and I do not think that there is an advanced answer that makes sense of this situation.

Again you are asking to prove a negative, but to be honest, I do not see the point as it could be have a billion answers, granted most of them very silly. But only personal preference determines the very silly from the plausible here, which could not be a worse way to come to a conclusion.

Don't feel underestimated, it's not our lack, but their technological advancements that I would blame for our not being able to detect them. I really don't see why it's so hard for you to accept that any being that can get around the FTL problem would have technology that would far surpass ours and hence wouldn't have ANY trouble hiding from us....

Again, I say, I don't know why they are sighted to burst out at beaches, and close to shorelines. I just don't think 'odd behaviour' is a good reason to discount the ET possibility....

As to billions of possibilities - I disagree - to consider ET amongst military secrets, meteorlogical, interdimensional, time travelors etc isn't such a long shot because of the vast amount of sightings etc... Not to forget people like Gilfaer who claim actual contact. It's because of these stories that (until proven false) I have to keep an open mind.

Sorry man, my mistake, when you said you did not want to hear it (Greek Gods), I though you opposed it.

But how can they not be mistaken identity? What has been used for comparison?

No need to apologise!!!

I was probably responding to cases where what is being reported is so obviously a machine, that I didn't want to hear the perception argument again... I'd much rather hear explinations that actually fit, like your rocket (from sub) example, or s secret military project...

Some can, and as you know have been proven to be mistaken identity, but as I've said before, I'm only really interested in cases that fit my criterion.

Indeed, and one must take into account the influence this crackpot element has upon the subject.

Agreed but please remember it cuts both ways - the crackpots seem to have made you less open-minded than you could be, which is a shame and why I hate crackpots and hoaxers. Look at the amazing amount of energy some of the guys here have put into showing an earthly explination for certain incidents (example the flares arguement going on atm in the 'Best Evidence' thread).... Now imagine that ammount of energy and attention to detail etc going into objective investigation. (I'm not saying it doesn't, just saying, we should never allow crackpottery to influence HOW we investigate)

Again I look back at my post and I think the points of mistaken identity, our current knowledge of Plasma, and Bioluminescence common in Sea Creatures will answer many claims, granted not all, but we have more to learn. I do think it is just not a well looked at as the instances are less than land based sightings, and no wonder really. However, this to me again indicates natural phenomena. I do not see how ET can be visiting with the proposed regularity when this phenomena has all shapes and sizes in all parts of the world. Sightings are almost as diverse as the sky itself.

Alaso again with that site, not too many actually enter the water, but extract water, which if it was an ET craft, one would be suspecting is taking on board resources. Like the ETH, USO's are in a messy state, and I do not think they can be lumped together, but need far better categorisation.

Time is tight, forgive any typos please mate.

Cheers.

Well, just go to waterufo.net and pick the ones that fit my criterion - you will see they cannot be Plasma or Bioluminescence...

I don't know why you keep bringing these up because it's the ones we can't explain that interest us - not the ones we can.

Dude, hundreds of them enter the water (not just extract)! I'm pretty sure now that you haven't read as many as I have.

Do check it out, there are some incredible incidents!

THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WRITE ALL THIS!!!

Edited April 28, 2011 by Paxus

[mcrom901]

How is it a non-issue when clearly that would explain no radar contact?

cause as far as i understand it even picks up flocking birds... as such the primary radar would have picked up said targets simply as blips without the accompanying id's which are provided through the transponder....

[Paxus]

cause as far as i understand it even picks up flocking birds... as such the primary radar would have picked up said targets simply as blips without the accompanying id's which are provided through the transponder....

I thought we'd agreed there were NO transponder signals picked up! *starts pulling hair out...... realises he has no hair*

Look, radar isn't exact. If there's a hill between the radar installation and the a/c, it won't get picked up.

How do you think some aircraft are designed to avoid radar? Perhaps the model a/c were build the same way?

I dunno and am board with this stuff

[DBunker]

Good point! Here is another short but important edit...

Roswell ....

.... - Not ET

Phoenix ...

... - Not ET

Belgium ......

...... - Not ET

BOLA ..

.. - Not ET

Bi Valve Clam .....

..... - Not ET

Echo Oscar Incident .......

....... - Not ET

We mustn't forget to make room for connecting the dots too...

ETA... and, of course, there is this.

Most people, that has the smallest skeptical bone in their body, has to agree with that.

At the very best, we have some unexplained mysteries..... and as all of us (well, maybe not all of us ) already know unexplained is NOT THE SAME as ET.

[quillius]

It is just basic laws of magnetism opposite poles attract, like poles repel. The earth has a magnetic influence, should the anomaly rotate, it seems to me to be quite plausible that you would then get both reactions.

Hey Psyche, not too sure what you are saying here?!?! I understand that its plausible to have both, what I was trying to say is that there are other characteristics that can be displayed that could not be considered 'attraction' or 'repulsion'.

[quillius]

Hi Quillus

Which aspects in particular? When discussing the portage county case earlier, I found an array of recorded activity from Hessdalen that mimics what has been described by officers.

As the anomaly is a natural one and beyond our control, it is unlikely that any instance will be repeated perfectly. It woud be like looking for 2 identical snowflakes.

Cheers.

Hi Psyche, I highlight some aspects over on the original PC thread as previosuly mentioned, I will do that now, so please go there for a response to your question. Could you also please explain what recorded activity mimics the PC case? I have had a look (a good look) and have found nothing myself.

Just to clarify I understand no two observations will be identical and I would not expect them to be, if this was ever the case then this would be quite significant in itself IMO.

Anyhow I am sure we can continue this over on the other thread.

See you there

[quillius]

How's Gilfaer's story for good evidence for ET visitation?[/color][/b]

(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=177786)

(http://www.marcjager.com/gilfaer.html)

I too would love to hear some of the skeptics opinions on this one....even better I would be interested in seeing them pose some questions to Gilfaer.

Pax, do you know where he got the name from? playing with the letters I can obviously extract 'liar' but cant do much with the other letters left G,F and E...

[lost_shaman]

Remember how I said that because of all the pointless back and forth arguing (when it's CLEAR you won't ever see eye to eye) the Phoenix lights AIRCRAFT explination has been all but missed?

Well can I please point this out AGAIN?

Perhaps Hazzard can make a rule for his thread than any one case should not take up more than 3 pages of just arguing?

I dunno, but this is getting as annoying as the Roswell argument that wasted everyone's time, patience, bandwidth and nerves....

I propose a new rule,... Stop whining! If you don't like what being posted then don't read it. No-one is forcing you to 'waste' your time reading our discussions.

NOW, to MY POINT:

This should be a lesson to all of us.

See how anyone can CREATE any explination they like if they work hard enough at it?

You guys have very cleverly 'proven' that they were flares when really they could have been aircraft (seen very clearly by an astronomer with a telescope)......

You are confusing the 8:00 pm events with the 10:00 pm events. These were two separate events not to be confused with one another.

BY lesson, I mean, don't make up your mind what you believe and then set about proving it.

You should always just investigate OBJECTIVELY.

What has been done here (by more than one person) is that 'flares' was decided and then and explination/proof was built around that assumption.

Honestly, I can only speak for myself, I had no idea when I started crunching the numbers if the Math would confirm or deny that Flares could be seen behind these Mountains. As far as I'm concerned you can't get any more OBJECTIVE than that.

[Space Commander Travis]

I propose a new rule,... Stop whining! If you don't like what being posted then don't read it. No-one is forcing you to 'waste' your time reading our discussions.

The point, though, is that worthwhile stuff can be found in this thread... but it can be very difficult to find it, or remember where it was, among page after page after page of arguing about points which have been cleared up months ago, except for the one person who still refuses to take any notice. Similarly, if something new and potentially interesting is brought up, it can so easily be forgotten if it gets swamped by page after page of arguing.

[lost_shaman]

The point, though, is that worthwhile stuff can be found in this thread... but it can be very difficult to find it, or remember where it was, among page after page after page of arguing about points which have been cleared up months ago, except for the one person who still refuses to take any notice. Similarly, if something new and potentially interesting is brought up, it can so easily be forgotten if it gets swamped by page after page of arguing.

This is a discussion Forum. This is the nature of Discussion Forums, it not only works this way here but on all other discussion Forums as well. There is also a Search function that you can use in the upper right hand corner under your Profile box.

[Hazzard]

Perhaps Hazzard can make a rule for his thread than any one case should not take up more than 3 pages of just arguing?

I wish I could but it sounds more like something for the UM moderators, not me.

You guys have very cleverly 'proven' that they were flares when really they could have been aircraft (seen very clearly by an astronomer with a telescope)......

There where two sightings.

The "V"-shape event was Mitch Stanley, the amateur astronomer who observed the lights using a Dobsonian telescope, he said that the lights were aircrafts flying in formation.

The second event, observed later that night, was the LUU-2B/B illumination flares.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Hazzard

[skyeagle409]

Once again I will ask you... prove that the math we've been discussing is wrong by showing us the error in the calculations.

Do you remember me saying that a picture is worth a thousands words and numbers?

Now, sit back and think what that means. That was in regard to the Chicago skyline. I got that idea by the fact that as distance increases, the lower on the horizon an object will be at the same elevaton, which is why I posted the numbers for Phoenix and the BGR but it seems that there were those who have failed to connect any dots.

I was sitting here behind my residence and notice that even at the same level, I can hardly see the top of a 417-foot building downtown and about 12 miles from where I live and across the bay. I already knew that flares cannot be seen around Phoenix and that explains why the folks of Phoenix who have lived in that city for years, have never seen flares before despite the fact that the BGR has been in operation for many years and despite the numerous flare drops over the years.

That should have been a clue right there that your figures were not adding up because if they did, the folks of Phoenix would have been seeing flare drops on a regular basis over the years, and yet, most have never seen flares from over the BGR, which should have told you something right there..

Edited April 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yes there were. And the math proves it.

You had better try to get those flares above 18,000 feet then because those light were definitely not over the BGR, and that further explains why the folks of Phoenix have never seen flares over the BGR before despite the number of years in operation and numerouls flare drops and those lights were not flares anyway and there are a number of indications they were not flares.

Edited April 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[lost_shaman]

Do you remember me saying that a picture is worth a thousands words and numbers?

Now, sit back and think what that means. That was in regard to the Chicago skyline. I got that idea by the fact that as distance increases, the lower on the horizon an object will be at the same elevaton, which is why I posted the numbers for Phoenix and the BGR but it seems that there were those who have failed to connect any dots.

You've failed to connect the dots, Sky. That is what this formula does... Distance in Miles squared divided by 1.513.

[skyeagle409]

What does that photo prove other than you do not understand the math that has been presented to you? It is completely useless, and you are only showing your failings as an investigative body.

It is all very simple. It shows that you can barely see the top of a 1400-foot building from just 50 miles away, and there are no mountains between the camera and skyline either. Now, some posters are talking distances up to 77 miles away. At that point, how much of that 1400-foot building is going to be visible?

The Air Force said that flares were dropped from 6000 feet and ignited at 3000 feet. At that distance and altitude, any flares would barely be above the horizon, and visible only if there is no mountain between the viewer and the flares at 3000 feet, but, I already knew that those lights were not flares.

Get of your hiney and actually do some work as you always tell others to do. This is not in any way homework, it is a genuine cop out. Lost Shaman in particular has really shone with his results, and as anyone can see, has put in the work, and you rebut this with a happy snap? What about Percs pictures? He has shown all angles, and day to night comparisons and it is more than evident from the photos that he has presented that you are wrong in your assumptions and has shown the value of your happy snap which is zip as you do not seem to have picked up on that.

Now, think for a moment about his photos and figures and think again why most people of Phoenix have never seen flares before over the BGR. Connect the dots.

Your debate has been soundly trounced Skyeagle, man up and admit these men bested you.

Now, why am I amused? Could it be that he was unaware as to why most folks of Phoenix have never seen flares over the BGR before despite the numerous flare drops over the years? Connect the dots.

They failed to connect any dots in the same manner when I told them no weather balloon for the Roswell inicident, that is, until the Air Force told them how in 1994, and the rest is history, and speaking of history, we are going to get into another situation where history has repeated itself on the "Phoenix Lights" and flares that never were, and the Roswell weather balloon that never was.

Edited April 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You've failed to connect the dots, Sky. That is what this formula does... Distance in Miles squared divided by 1.513.

It is just a matter of sitting on a certain spot and looking at a tall building from 50 miles away without a mountain in between, which means, the dots in your case have not been connected.

Now, using that photo I supplied of the Chicago skyline, compute the angle above that horizon for a building that is 1400 feet tall from the point where the photo was taken (50 miles) and let's compare your figures with what is depicted in the photo, and then, we can work from there.

Edited April 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

That video doesn't disprove the fact that the videos were of flares.

Oc course it does.,

Those who have seen flares, are the folks who are dimissing flares, and those who have neverr seen flares, are the folks pushing flares that were not there, and pushing the Air Force's deception.

[skyeagle409]

Your debate has been soundly trounced Skyeagle, man up and admit these men bested you. The video and the excellent gif from Boon show us clearly that you are 100% incorrect and that what is displayed in said items are indeed flares. Lost Shaman even trounced your speed claims and calculated the rate at which the flares were dropped, which just happens to match the airspeed of the A10's claimed to be in the air at the time.

Speaking of airspeed of the A-10. Look at those lights, and place them 50 miles away and then, compute the distance between the outer-most lights. I am gettnig into something else about that.