Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 11 votes

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6153 replies to this topic

#2251    Paxus

Paxus

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,689 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010

Posted 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM

Heya psyche101!

First off - Thanks for talking the time to answer my posts in so much detail - I do realise it streatches your patience somewhat ;)

View Postpsyche101, on 21 April 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

Really? I was quite stunned at the impressive work from LS and Perc. That the calcs matched up close enough to match is a significant push forward with the Phoenix lights, they have now determined the speed, which was an ETH argument against the flare theory. Just awesome work from these fellows, I would like to see such from the likes of Friedman, who makes a living from peddling crap not half as impressive. Not even all his work tied together and folded over is as impressive or insightful as a simple discussing any UFO subject with any one of these fellows.
What I have witnessed here is indeed, best evidence. The Phoenix lights I feel now exclude ET as a possibility. And that be the aim of this thread - to determine best evidence. Best evidence is right under our noses on that one.
I didn't mean I didn't like the Phoenix Lights conclusions I just meant I don't like the skyeagle vs everyone back and forth arguments a-la Roswell...

psyche101 said:

Perhaps try talking with members Mattshark and Cetacea. Marine Biologists who will tell you pretty much what I told Quillus, as they taught me a great deal about Ocean depths in past conversations about cryptids and the Sea Shepard.
Will do!

psyche101 said:

How does the USO argument not suffer from the same constraints? One still has to get here to hide in the Oceans? It would simply offer a hiding place once here. Unless of course you are going with the "evolved here" ideal that 747400 touched on. I got the impression that was not your argument.
I do not think the large majority enter water bodies, I have heard reports of UFO's "sucking up" water, that is a markedly different description. I do think many are lying or deluded, one of the first argument you hear, and one we will hear about here no doubt is the Christopher Columbus tale, which is plainly not ET. Also, by deluded, I am not thinking like the cat lady on the Simpson's, but forced into an alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture. Many are simply drawn to the ideal of ET, and that is good enough for them, and we have seen such here *cough viper2 cough* There may be one or two intriguing tales, but I do think the majority can be explained here on earth, and the strong minority where total sightings are tallied. As such, I can put those fewer instances down to embellishment. I do feel that you have a tendency to believe people's personal interpretations quite readily as opposed to looking at the many possibilities? Who are "all these people" that you believe saw something that cannot be readily explained? Personal interpretation skews investigation, as an example, I woud cite that some still claim the failed rocket launches, like the more recent example from Norway, are alien dimensional vortexes. How are you determining the zealots from the genuine articles here. Should they not all be regarded as simply a UFO, and then we take the step to ET, Natural Phenomena or other? Albeit that step might be our discussion, but I get the impression that you are pushing that some are likely Alien, which is an assumption and at this point no more than a preference. I do not think you can move forward with investigation based on such a loose assumption, as I do not see what else has been seriously considered. Peoples first impressions might be good enough for you (I mean that in a respectful way), but personally I need more meat in that sandwich.
The simple answer would be, 'I don't know and have never claimed to know all the answers'.
More specific answers would include,
* Perhaps initial arrival occured a thousand years ago (or any other time we couldn't have detected their arrival
* Perhaps initial arrival was well stealthed.
* Perhaps initial arrival was detected. It's not as if ufos haven't ever been detected from space. (Sorry i can't link examples off the top of my head but even if I could it doesn't matter as there may even be cases that are simply not made public knowledge)
* Perhaps they evolved here.

To say that many are deluded or mistaken or lying simply ignores the many they aren't simply couldn't be. Is it at all possible you haven't read as many cases as I have? I somehow doubt it but we're not talking a handful here, we're talking about hundreds of sightings...
Your post about alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture simply doesn't fit some sightings.
When scientists who don't believe the ETH see a UFO that changes their view to that of unkown highly advanced craft, you can't put that sighting into the category of mistaken or dellueded! Of course I know they might still be lying but once again, this isn't happening just once or twice!



psyche101 said:

I do not think that this only leaves us with the above, in addition to Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time traveller, I would like to add natural phenomena. Twisters and the like funnel water up into the sky, and for an abstract tie in, what about all the fish, frogs, and other water creatures that "rain down" from time to time, or red rain - where does this come from? Could this strange phenomena be explained by a natural process very much like this?


psyche101 said:

Hey, both theories come from the same crowd! They are nominating ET to begin with. You may pick and choose what seems more plausible to you, but is that being objective? One must consider the common denominator here. I do feel I offered much more than that, which I am sorry to say you seem to have missed. As in the very next paragraph - shallow waters, and where these things actually are sighted mostly.
What I am not seeing is why ET always the first instance, let alone at all? Where is the tie in past "we cannot do that". How do these people reporting things like this know the forefront of technology, and what is being experimented on at the moment? How do they rule out all other processes? ET is but one possibility, and to me way down the list when saddled on it's own supporting evidence
First of all, not everyone that has seen what they are sure is a craft (unkown craft) believes that ET are crashing all over Earth - that's just crazy.
I'll take your word for it that there's a large crowd who do believe they crash and that they are based in the ocean but i still don't see how this is a good reason to discount the possibility that something is hiding in our oceans.
I'm not picking and choosing the way you think I am.
I'm trying to whittle down the possibilities and just like a skeptic refuses to believe in the ETH, I refuse to rule out a possibility that has not be proven false.


psyche101 said:

It is not logical though is it? Why would a craft that went to all the trouble to hide from us by building some incredible undetectable base at the bottom of the Ocean, and then scoot along under the surface to breach close to shore in full view of those you just put all this effort into hiding from?
I say, as I keep saying on this forum, you cannot ascribe our logic to something unkown!
Let's, for argument's sake say, that it is ET.... We can't possibly know why they do what they do!
Perhaps having their bases hidden is the only major concern?
Perhaps they want to be seen as part of a slow 'getting us used to them' startegy?
Also, don't forget I'm not ruling out that they aren't some secret military project.

psyche101 said:

Do you not think ET itself is a very major assumption?
Yes and no. (Which is why I sit on the fence)
If you believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of witnesses aren't lying/mistaken/delluded then you have to believe there are unkown craft flying around. If there are unkown craft flying around then they could be secret man-made projects, time travelors, interdimensional or ET.
As I mentioned before, I'm as loathe to rule out  ET as a skeptic is to rule them in. (Which, btw, is not what I am doing, I am merely asking a series of 'what ifs'....)


psyche101 said:

Well I do not think you have any arguent at all there. You are imagining that something might be able to hide an imaginary being! The "tech we do not understand"argument is less sensible than Greek Gods man! I know you do not like the analogy, but we were very wrong on that one, and I ask that you point out to me the major difference? All I can see is this explanation bruises egos?
How are you proposing they do hide? If using this as a solution, surely it is not out of line to ask you to justify the/a solution? You do not want me to just say "well, something we have not thought of yet!" Surely! How is that any better than Greek Gods?
I'm just going by your quote (not looking at mine atm - sorry work constraints) but I think I know what you mean and I stick by my argument (keeping in mind, it's a hypothesis).
IF there is ET, then hiding on Earth isn't going to present much of a challenge to them.
I really don't see how you could possibly disagree with that.
I've never said that I don't like the 'Greek Gods' analogy. Actually, I think it's a very useful one! I am just as aware of people's propensity for making mistakes and the terrible nature of witness testimony (I know from my psychology studies why it is <mostly to do with how badly our memory works>).
Anyway, it's a great analogy to help weed out the people making mistakes.
If all that we ever had were vague sightings by unreliable witnesses I probably wouldn't even consider the ETH. The problem is we don't only have vague sightings by unreliable witnesses. We have sightings that last several minutes by scientists or otherwise very reliable witnesses that are often up close or lasting several minutes where the UFO displays properties of a machine.... This is why I can't write them off as 'mistaken identitiy'.

psyche101 said:

Mate, that is not what I said. I said that the UFO/America conspiracy BS is ridiculous, and far from and advanced race, and would violate GR's prime directive.
Ah ok.
While I'm inclined to agree with you there - even those crazy conspiracy theories, however unlikely, can't be disproven. (Not saying I believe them - I have often said that I find it HIGHLY unlikely that out of hundreds of people who would have to be 'in on' such a secret, no one would ever blow the whistle)


psyche101 said:

My first thought? This

Posted Image

I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.
Very nice - and like I said above, this would be a great explination if it was someone who didn't know better that saw it and if they saw it from a distance, but I asked what if it hovered around for a while before leaving? (I should have added, it didn't look like a rocket but I thought you knew what I meant).
For you to show me a pick of a rocket launched from a sub makes me think you haven't read the kind of sightings I'm talking about.... Have you read EVERY sighting at www.waterufo.net? <--- sorry if that's the wrong link, you know which sight i mean, can't use net right now (typing this as a .txt right now for posting later on)
The real question I'm asking is what would you think if it were you that had one of the more fantastic sightings that are a dime a dozen out there. YOU saw a definate craft (perhaps even with visible occupants), you saw it do things which known man-made craft can't  do etc. etc.
This is the UFO problem, not that some people are wrong or lying.
The UFO problem is that they ARE here and we need to figure out who/what they are. (Not if they exist)
[Well that's my opinion anywho ;)]


#2252    arenee

arenee

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 25 April 2011 - 11:18 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 25 April 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

Well, I'm satisfied with the conclusions we've reached regarding the Phoenix Lights videos but I'm having such a blast with Google Earth that I'll probably keep kicking it around for a while, especially if the birdman keeps on refusing to see the obvious and arguing with us about it.

But by all means, that doesn't mean we can't discuss multiple cases.  What case would you like to move on to?
I dunno Boon, I was thinking some Roswell stuff maybe since we've not done that in about 50 pages... :P :tu:  

Lemme do some looking around and find one to have you guys tear apart.

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2253    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,600 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:20 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 25 April 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

The Air Force didn't say they were ignited at 3000 feet.  We've been through all of this before skyeagle, you're simply mistaken.  Get over it already.

It was never a secret what the Air Force had stated. In addition, I will be passing through Phoenix this weekend.

Quote

Official Explanation (U. S. Air Force)

After denying that they had heard of the incident, the Air Force released their official explanation of the sightings - military flares.  They stated that military flares had been released from a USAF A-10 over the Gila Bend Bombing Range (located 60-80 miles southwest of Phoenix, on the other side of the bordering mountain range).  

They explained that the A-10 had released the flares at about 6,000 feet and that the flares had ignited at around 3,000 feet.  They completely burnt out at around 500 feet.


The Air Force stated that the A-10s were on a special training mission.

My link

My link

My link


Addtionally:

Quote


UFO researchers have filed FOIA requests with the US Air Force, requesting logs of departures and arrivals of A-10s during the night of March 13 - the USAF has yet to comply with their requests.

My link

I wonder why the Air Force continued to side-step request for such logs,and just as important, why it took the Air Force a long period of time to come up with a cover story.!


Edited by skyeagle409, 26 April 2011 - 03:43 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2254    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:39 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 April 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

It was never a secret what the Air Force had stated. In addition, I will be passing through Phoenix this weekend.
Your links to forum posts and websites that claim this was some kind of official statement don't exactly amount to proof skyeagle.  You are simply mistaken.  Or, as some might see it, willfully ignorant (to a painful degree, I might add).

Edit to add...

This "mock" statement that you are presenting is no more valid today than it was several months ago when you tried to pull the same garbage.

Oh, and have a nice trip to Phoenix.  I hope you see some alien piloted flares during your stay.

Edited by booNyzarC, 26 April 2011 - 03:41 AM.


#2255    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:09 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 April 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

Addtionally:



I wonder why the Air Force continued to side-step request for such logs,and just as important, why it took the Air Force a long period of time to come up with a cover story.![/color][/b]
It must have been a major cover-up of significantly large and gigantically proportionate importance.  A Cosmic Watergate!  Those evil Air Force cover uppers!  Get the pitchforks and torches boys!  Let's get em!  They are hiding the truth about UFOs from all of us!  There are alien piloted spacecraft flying around our skys doing... well... nothing of importance...  but we should know about it gosh darnit! :rolleyes:


Skyeagle... they were flares.  I'm sorry.  Enough is enough.  Why are you even arguing this point?  They were obviously flares.  All of the data we've put together confirms it.  Helpless little flares off in the distance, dangling from their parachutes, floating down as they burn into nothingness...  you should let their poor little flare souls rest in peace.


#2256    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 April 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

It was never a secret what the Air Force had stated. In addition, I will be passing through Phoenix this weekend.


Interesting that ALL three of your links quote the exact same sentence.

"They explained that the A-10 had released the flares at about 6,000 feet and that the flares had ignited at around 3,000 feet."

You clearly did not search far nor wide for your links. A Google search of the exact sentence above returns not only this thread (before my post here) but also your three links within the top 5 returns!

What is ironic is that you constantly accuse others of not "doing their homework" and using 'sites' that are biased. Yet you seem to think linking to the same sentence three times 'proves' something... It doesn't.

Nor does it 'prove' you can do "your homework", it proves you just searched for people who quoted Gazrok!  :w00t:

Edited by lost_shaman, 26 April 2011 - 07:23 AM.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2257    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM

The actual quote... "(Our pilots) told me that at 6,000 feet and using those types of flares, you can see them from 150 miles away on a good night," Shepherd said."

http://kenny.anomaly..._ANG_GUILTY.htm


Here is a question for you... Could such a statement be true?

(I say it is.)

And a bonus question... If so what was the 'clue' that you picked up on?

Edited by lost_shaman, 26 April 2011 - 07:58 AM.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2258    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,121 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:37 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

What is ironic is that you constantly accuse others of not "doing their homework" and using 'sites' that are biased. Yet you seem to think linking to the same sentence three times 'proves' something... It doesn't.

It is interesting, isn't it, that in accusing us of not doing our homework Sky has in effect forced us to do exactly that... our homework (and then some).

Unfortunately for him it has had quite the opposite effect than can be assumed was his intention. It hasn't proved him right at all. It has shown everyone just how wrong, biased, willfully ignorant, and gullible he really is.

Quote

Nor does it 'prove' you can do "your homework", it proves you just searched for people who quoted Gazrok!  :w00t:
It does, however, fit quite nicely into his modus operandi of simply repeating the same tired factless balogna over and over in the vain, fruitless hope that someone will actually eventually believe it.



Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#2259    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 26 April 2011 - 08:34 AM

I havent been posting much but have still been lurking whilst doing more research. Interesting to see how these threads progress.

Sky, whilst researching it has come to my attention that you are quite knowledgable on the colares case (Brazil).

I would ask that we possibly discuss this next as quite a few people have stated that this is a very baffling case.

Quite a few skeptics have stated the same, Sky you too know of this case, and I also think that some of us 'fence sitters'/'believers' would also like to thrash this out in the hope we can understand more.

So having said all that, can we leave Phoenix, Roswell, MacArthur and BOLA alone for a while and freshen up the thread with the Colares case??

Boon, I know you suggested we talk about multiple cases but I think this seems to not work so well. I believe the detail that many people go into in every case is hard enough to follow and conclude without trying to do this across multiple cases.

Therefore if you feel Phoenix still needs discussing then we can hold back discussing Colares case until deemed appropriate.

Thanks


#2260    richochet

richochet

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:26 Apr 2011

Posted 26 April 2011 - 08:47 AM

i have no pictures to show as it was a long time ago for me and i was too poor to own a camera (lol) i have seen one alien, it was quite large (about 11 ft tall) it had a long head and walked on hind legs, it had two large arms and two smaller arms. it was what looked like calling or signaling its ship or its mates (it was at night time so i cant be specific) but i have no doubt in aliens on earth and i look foreword to communications

sanity is for the weak

#2261    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:07 AM

View Postquillius, on 26 April 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

"...I think this seems to not work so well."

Hey quillius,

I don't mean to single you out or anything, but I must say I'm seriously irritated by the idea that "we" should stop discussing cases because some people 'lurking' get 'bored'.

The very idea that "I'm boring someone" who I never meant to entertain in first place puts me off a bit.

The truth is these threads are popular despite bored 'lurkers' almost everyone else claims to have "learned" something.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2262    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:18 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

Hey quillius,

I don't mean to single you out or anything, but I must say I'm seriously irritated by the idea that "we" should stop discussing cases because some people 'lurking' get 'bored'.

The very idea that "I'm boring someone" who I never meant to entertain in first place puts me off a bit.

The truth is these threads are popular despite bored 'lurkers' almost everyone else claims to have "learned" something.

Hey LS, you have misunderstood what I was saying, I obviously didnt express myself correctly.

I was lurking only due to the fact that I was busy researching plus I had nothing of any value to add, this was on both the MacArthur case and the Pheonix lights. I did not find it boring by any means, the same way I dint find the BOLA case boring when we were discussing detail that would probably seem boring to some, it did have a point to determining what happened.

I suggested we leave certain cases as it seemed you guys had quite clearly pointed the Phoneix lights as being flares. There was no real debate on this apart from Sky, of course I may be wrong here.

I did finish by saying if there was more to be added on the Phoneix lights then press on, all I was trying to avoid was mutliple case discussions as I find this doesnt work as well as focus on one case does... hence I wrote 'Therefore if you feel Phoenix still needs discussing then we can hold back discussing Colares case until deemed appropriate'

I get far from bored even when lurking.


#2263    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,596 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:30 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

(I say it is.)

1996?

:huh:


#2264    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,171 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:21 AM

View Postquillius, on 26 April 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

Hey LS, you have misunderstood what I was saying, I obviously didnt express myself correctly.

Hey quillius,

I don't think there is a misunderstanding per se, your post just prompted a little rant on my part but as I said I wasn't singleing you out personally, just the "idea" of 'our' discussions being guided for 'someones' entertainment puts me off!

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2265    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:33 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

Hey quillius,

I don't think there is a misunderstanding per se, your post just prompted a little rant on my part but as I said I wasn't singleing you out personally, just the "idea" of 'our' discussions being guided for 'someones' entertainment puts me off!


Hey Ls, I dont agree im afraid, I think it is a misunderstanding because your post implied boredom as mentioned three times. I never once said I was bored because I am not bored. I simply suggested the next case to be looked at being the Colares case assuming discussions on Phoenix had concluded.

So I dont feel singled out but more misunderstood, If I felt bored I would have said the same and defended the position if I still felt that way, which I dont.

In all honesty I too get annoyed when people say they are bored with any line of discussion that proves points, and the discussions on Phoenix have been just that, in addition I enjoy the maths as it is one of my stronger points.


I would also like to say I dont do this for entertainment, I am a member here to learn as much as I can whilst searching for the truth, more importantly something to substantiate or demolish completely my belief in visitation.