Ufo poll

[Annointer]

I've seen at least 6 UFOs. 1 looked exactly like those spotted in mexico all the time and 2 appeared as very bright stars (during daylight) and rapidly dimmed to nothing. Another i saw with a friend had 3 lights in a perfect triangle move slowly past the edge of town.

The other two i saw weren't more than a hundred yards away from me.

Driving home i saw a ball fly across the street in front of me and right past my house. I guess it was one of those supposed probes.

My first sighting was the most spectacular. Yet i can't believe i only have one witness to confirm what i saw. It flew down the middle of town not more than a hundred feet above the buildings. (at night) It's lights were very obvious.

[skyeagle409]

name='GanjaGuru' date='Oct 28 2006, 05:02 AM' post='1407674']

Just because you don't know what a UFO is or because it is not a 'conventional' aicraft does not mean it's alien.

Actually, that may not be difficult to determine. After all, did mankind have an aircraft that could fly right-angled maneuvers at 40+ Gs and at over 7000 mph in 1952? If not, then apparently someone other than mankind did as evident in the Washington incidents.

LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, Pages 39-40

Edited October 28, 2006 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

name='Essan' date='Oct 28 2006, 10:33 AM' post='1407847']

By definition and object or light you see in the sky and can not immediate identify is a UFO.

The majority turn out to be natural objects, optical illusions or aircraft (including some 'secret' test and spy craft). What's left are most likely GLOs / Ball Lightning.

The UFOs in question are definitely not secret aircraft. There are certain protocols and regulations to follow in conducting flights of classified aircraft and those UFOs do not fit the description of classified aircraft operations by any means. In fact, those UFOs break just about every international flight regulation governing flight operations in controlled airspaces around the world. Sometimes UFOs travel in groups that have nothing to do with classified aircraft and the UFO I saw over Vietnam in 1968 definitely had nothing to do with classified aircraft of any kind so I fail to see the logic that the UFOs in question had anything to do with classified aircraft. Each SR-71 mission cost us millions of dollars and yet UFOs do not follow international flight regulations and operate outside regulations governing classified flight operations. In fact, SR-71 pilots were required to focus intensively on their flight paths and timing so as to not cause an international incident yet the UFOs in question do not follow such requirements as noted on military and civilian radar screens and pilots reports from around the world.

Those who claim that the UFOs in question are classiified aircraft have no understanding of what they are talking about as far as flight operations of classified aircraftr are concerned. A case in point is this months edition of Air Force Magazine, which shows how the Air Force goes to great lengths to not only hide its classified aircrraft from the eyes of the public but also from the eyes of military and civilian personnel at secret bases who possess top secret clearances but do not have the proper clearances for certain projects operated from those secret bases and yet some skeptics seem to think that UFOs, such as in the following case, were secret aircraft, which were photograhed hovering over lakes, airports, nuclear facilities and even over cities in broad daylight. Nothing could be further from the truth and there are very good reasons for certain military restricted flight zones and MOAs and you can find them on aviation sectional charts.

I am very sure this incident had nothing to do with ball lightning either.

A FLYING SAUCER PERTURBED THE AIR TRAFFIC AT BARILOCHE AIRPORT

SAN CARLOS DE BARILOCHE 02/08 (AFP) = On Monday morning, around ten eye-witnesses reported that, moving at high velocity and defying all known laws of physics, a white flying saucer perturbed the air traffic at the San Carlos de Bariloche airport, located 1 800 km S-W of Buenos-Aires, during 15 minutes on Monday to Tuesday night.

The observation stated on Monday at 23:30 GMT (Tuesday 01H30 HB) while Aérolinas Argentinas flight 674, en route from Buenos Aires with 102 passengers and 3 crew members was on final approach to land on the runway of Bariloche airport, an in vogue winter resort located on the first slopes of the Andes.

"The pilot of the plane had to accomplish a desperate escape maneuver not to collide with an unidentified flying object (UFO)" said several members of the Argentine military air forces. These testimonies were confirmed by Major Jorge Oviedo himself who "also saw a UFO" and who stated that "a power failure occurred at the same time in the city and all recording and measure apparatus at the airport were jammed". Several inhabitants claimed they saw the UFO just before the power failure.

"We were 15 minutes away from landing at Bariloche. The local air traffic controller gave us clearance for initiating the instrument landing procedure. We came down from level 120 (i.e. 12,000 feet) to level 30 (i.e. 3,000 feet; around 1,000 meters) said pilot Jorge Polanco."

"As I was initiating final descent, I saw suddenly a white light in front of the plane, moving at high speed directly towards us before stopping instantly around 100 meters away. When I re-initiated the approach procedure, the object turned in a strange way to accompany our descent turn and kept a trajectory parallel to that of the plane, still 100 meters away " said the pilot."

" My plane was working properly, but after a while, the color of the saucer (the size of which was comparable to that of a liner), shifted. Two green lights at the extremities and a slowly flashing orange one at the center appeared ", he added.

" As I was almost landing, the runway lights and those of the airport shut off at once. I therefore had to apply full throttle to climb again to 3 000 feet, tempting to perform an escape maneuver, but always accompanied by the UFO, which eventually climbed at a supernatural speed. I did not believe my eyes and I was very anxious, as were my fellow crew members " added Polanco who stated that " the UFO was not moving in accordance with known laws of nature and physics ".

http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm

This encounter was also published in newspapers around the world including the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Edited October 28, 2006 by skyeagle409

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

The fireballs are a cloak for a triangular ship...I saw one come uncloaked..it was amazing....

What on Star Trek?

[badeskov]

Actually, that may not be difficult to determine. After all, did mankind have an aircraft that could fly right-angled maneuvers at 40+ Gs and at over 7000 mph in 1952? If not, then apparently someone other than mankind did as evident in the Washington incidents.

LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, Pages 39-40

Last time I checked no air force had a craft that could pull such maneuvers But who says it was a craft? Why not a lightening phenomena of some kind that could be tracked by radar? That could be anything, really.

Best,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

name='badeskov' date='Oct 29 2006, 12:59 AM' post='1408469']

Last time I checked no air force had a craft that could pull such maneuvers But who says it was a craft? Why not a lightening phenomena of some kind that could be tracked by radar? That could be anything, really.

Best,

Badeskov

Because the radar contacts in question were indicative of large metallic objects, not the result of natural phenomena and in many cases, the objects were visually confirmed as artificial flying machines and in some of those cases the objects reacted to radar lock-ons, which suggest they were intelligently controlled.

The durations also exclude ball lightning and other weather- related phenomena as well. Meteorologist and scientific studies have shown that natural phenomena was not responsible for the UFOs in questions and pilots and ATC ground controllers who were involved in those incidents have concurred with the conclusions. Experienced radar controllers can easily differentiate between radar 'ghost angels' caused by temperature inversions (soft targets) and contacts of objects such as aircraft (hard targets). For an example, you are holding a rock (hard target) in your left hand and a sponge (soft target) in your right and with your eyes closed you can easily differentiate between the two and that is why the UFOs in question could not have resulted from weather-related phenomena.

Edited October 30, 2006 by skyeagle409

[Kazahel]

I've seen a couple. The first time I saw a ufo I was about 15 and in my house just watching tv, when this little red square about twice the size of a coke can went slowly floating past the window. It was just like a small red light which as it went past, it was like it slowed down time because I tried to stand up to walk to the window but it was like walking through water. It was really weird because I remember seeing it go down the road even though I had not made it to the window. It was almost like it dragged me out of body for a moment and when it left my vision I found myself back on the couch watching the ending of the movie again like nothing had happened.

The next time I was about 17 and I woke up and found a very bright blue crystal(about the size of a car)which was hovering above my house. I basically woke up and looked out the window(because bright blue light was shining in making it look like day time)and I could hear a pulsating humming kinda sound which is all what woke me up. Anyway I looked out the window and saw this blue crystal which hovered about 1 meter above the roof top. Which was the beginning of the 'Blue light dream' I had.

The best time though(outside with witnesses)I was at a girlfriends house and I saw what looked like a star fall from the sky but it just vanished and reappeared where it had started. It did this about maybe 10 times. After that sighting I saw on the news the next night that a triagle ship had been reported and that it had been seen all over the world. Which it was good to hear(that others had seen it).

[badeskov]

The fireballs are a cloak for a triangular ship...I saw one come uncloaked..it was amazing....

Why is it that I have a hard time with this cloaking theory? Could it be because physics has a very hard time with cloaking? Consider this, if we want to cloak something perfectly, we will need the object to do two things:

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.

2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself

Not only is that exceedingly hard to do in reality, but it also makes any object with that feature deaf and blind. And how does one control a blind ship? Sorry, but to me that is one of those fantastic features that sounds great on Star Trek, but nowhere else...

Best,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

name='badeskov' date='Oct 29 2006, 06:17 PM' post='1409092']

Why is it that I have a hard time with this cloaking theory? Could it be because physics has a very hard time with cloaking? Consider this, if we want to cloak something perfectly, we will need the object to do two things:

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.

2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself

Not only is that exceedingly hard to do in reality, but it also makes any object with that feature deaf and blind. And how does one control a blind ship? Sorry, but to me that is one of those fantastic features that sounds great on Star Trek, but nowhere else...

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.

Best,

Badeskov

Actually, cloaking is not far-fetched, especially for alien beings millions of years more advanced than mankind, and now, a new type of observation device has been developed for the military that practically disappears from view. Here's another developement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

SCIENTIST DEVELOPE HARRY POTTER STYLE INVISIBILITY 'CLOAK'

"It sounds straight from the pages of Harry Potter - but researchers have developed an "invisibility cloak" that will allow people, planes, tanks and even ships to disappear."

"But sadly the cloak, developed by a British and American team, cannot grab light waves and make objects invisible to us - it can only make them disappear from radar screens."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself

Submarines can operate passively and can detect other objects while in passive mode. In other words, it can detect other ships and submarines without emitting any signals. Some military aircraft can operate passively as well and detect other aircraft while in passive mode. The B-2 and the F-22 have features, which allow them to operate in times of war in ways that would have been considered science fiction as recently as the 1980s. If we have come that far in 2 decades and went from the first flight of an airplane to the space station in less than one hundred years, how far will we be technologically speaking, 1000 years from now? What about the advanced technology of alien beings of today who are where we will be in 200 million years from now? How about one billion years or even further?

I just found this and wanted to add this as well to show that what was science fiction yesterday, is now science fact. There were skeptics who'd said that it couldn't be done so the believers went out and proved that it could be done.

U.S. Air Force Debuts Laser-Weapon Aircraft

WICHITA, Kan. — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency rolled out an airborne laser aircraft on Friday, the latest development in a missile-defense system that was once ridiculed as a "Star Wars" fantasy.

Never say that it can't be done because, as history has shown, eventually someone will prove that it can.

Edited October 31, 2006 by skyeagle409