82 replies to this topic

[zoser]

 Rafterman, on 07 June 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Which "experts"?

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies.  You can find them as easy as I can!

[Hazzard]

 zoser, on 07 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies.  You can find them as easy as I can!

You are talking about those charlatans that have no problem making money of the gullible. Forgive me if Im not jumping up and down with excitement.

Edited by Hazzard, 07 June 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[woundman]

 psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Boomerangs have a point.


Some might think, well, close, but what would chinese whispers do to this "recollection"?

For one, two people who were describing different things are now thought to be seeing the same thing.

I am so sorry for referring to a 1/2 circle as a boomerang, even though it is a pretty similar 1/2 circle shape, should I have said horseshoe or would that be too narrow for you? I dont see your post as helpful or related, other than to simply be abrasive.

That picture is what we saw that night, albeit from a different angle

These are also boomerangs (they don't all have points if that was your point)
http://www.google.co...:7&tx=59&ty=19

http://www.google.co...r:14,s:57,i:299

[psyche101]

 zoser, on 07 June 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

The experts all say that this was a wave that lasted for the best part of the decade.  If the hoax was perpetrated by a group of pilots, flying in formation would they have got away with it for so long?  How come it has not leaked out?  This explanation fails anyway because most people described the craft as silent.  That only leaves some huge blimp or balloon hoax.  It would have to be very expensive, manned, and powered internally by some generator in order to create the illumination levels witnessed, maintain the air pressure and control the guidance system.  How did they get away with it for so long?  How could they have known that they were not to be attacked by the security personnel at the reactor or even some scared resident with a shotgun?  There are just too may questions to support the hoax theory.

For it to be a hoax would require quite a sophisticated level of technology from the size point of view, and I just don't see how it could have been achieved; remember the cold war was not even over and people were jittery to say the least.

Zoser

For goodness sakes man, have the guts to address my post directly! It looks like you are hiding from me, am I that scary to your fantasy? If I am, there can only be one reason.

No sophisticated technology was needed for the hoax flights, skill was needed. The pilots told you how they did it, I bet you refused to read what they had to say huh. What I want you to be able to tell me is how many genuine sightings are left now that the flights are involved? 1? Any? What is your proof, who is your "star witness" how do you know that the pilots did not create a mindset that had people expecting to see UFO's? Because the mindset was there, jittery nerves were not required, and there was no major panic like the BOLA case, it's an expectation, not a fear reaction.

You are trying to dismiss an outright confession. It shows that you are not after truths, just dirt to use. And Aztec is the biggest example of this to date. Hard to take you seriously when you grasp at straws like this Zoser. Some cases are real head scratchers, you do not seem to have come up to those ones yet. God help you when you find them! It will blow your head apart! The examples you have presented to date are not the most compelling cases IMHO.

But no doubt, you will keep trying to convince yourself, just do not be too surprised at an overall lack luster reaction to what you seem to find amazing. This is obvious when you outright refuse direct hoax confessions.

[psyche101]

 woundman, on 07 June 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I am so sorry for referring to a 1/2 circle as a boomerang, even though it is a pretty similar 1/2 circle shape, should I have said horseshoe or would that be too narrow for you? I dont see your post as helpful or related, other than to simply be abrasive.

That picture is what we saw that night, albeit from a different angle

These are also boomerangs (they don't all have points if that was your point)
http://www.google.co....:7&tx=59&ty=19

http://www.google.co...r:14,s:57,i:299

A Horseshoe would definitely be better. You only find my post abrasive because it affected you directly. I am not interested in you, just the evidence. Can you not see my point that two people describing different things are now seen to be describing the same thing? How can that help resolve an honest answer?

Your example still has an apex, your semi circle does not. Nor does a Boomerang "curl" around like your light example. I am afraid your example does not suffice I feel. It is not accurate.

Edited by psyche101, 08 June 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[psyche101]

 zoser, on 07 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies.  You can find them as easy as I can!

TV Presenters, journalists and the average person in the street?

[DONTEATUS]

 psyche101, on 08 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

TV Presenters, journalists and the average person in the street?

You forgot Bob Lazar and Billy Myers and a few other experts ! LOL !
Cheers mate ITs getting Hot Up over here in Big-D
Hows it Down under ?

[zoser]

 psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Zoser

For goodness sakes man, have the guts to address my post directly! It looks like you are hiding from me, am I that scary to your fantasy? If I am, there can only be one reason.

No sophisticated technology was needed for the hoax flights, skill was needed. The pilots told you how they did it, I bet you refused to read what they had to say huh. What I want you to be able to tell me is how many genuine sightings are left now that the flights are involved? 1? Any? What is your proof, who is your "star witness" how do you know that the pilots did not create a mindset that had people expecting to see UFO's? Because the mindset was there, jittery nerves were not required, and there was no major panic like the BOLA case, it's an expectation, not a fear reaction.

You are trying to dismiss an outright confession. It shows that you are not after truths, just dirt to use. And Aztec is the biggest example of this to date. Hard to take you seriously when you grasp at straws like this Zoser. Some cases are real head scratchers, you do not seem to have come up to those ones yet. God help you when you find them! It will blow your head apart! The examples you have presented to date are not the most compelling cases IMHO.

But no doubt, you will keep trying to convince yourself, just do not be too surprised at an overall lack luster reaction to what you seem to find amazing. This is obvious when you outright refuse direct hoax confessions.

I consider myself rebuked

One week detention and loss of privileges.

Edited by zoser, 08 June 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[psyche101]

 DONTEATUS, on 08 June 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

You forgot Bob Lazar and Billy Myers and a few other experts ! LOL !
Cheers mate ITs getting Hot Up over here in Big-D
Hows it Down under ?

Hehe, they are experts alright, what in is anybodies guess!

Mate, it's getting chilly down under, had the heater on most nights of late.

[psyche101]

 zoser, on 08 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

I consider myself rebuked

One week detention and loss of privileges.

I did  not rebuke you, I said grow a pair.

How do the pilots affect the incident? You say they are irrelevant, yet we have an outright confession. What makes the incident compelling when we know that a bunch of hoaxers have admitted to trying to fool people?

[zoser]

 psyche101, on 08 June 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

I did  not rebuke you, I said grow a pair.

How do the pilots affect the incident? You say they are irrelevant, yet we have an outright confession. What makes the incident compelling when we know that a bunch of hoaxers have admitted to trying to fool people?

Maybe the confessions just are not convincing enough?  People know what planes look like and sound like.  This was different.

[mrjolly]

 psyche101, on 05 June 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Google

Stormville Flyers Hudson Valley.

Ohh heck, gonna have to do that myself arenlt I? I know if a site does not start with UFO you wont click the link.

LINK

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

[zoser]

 mrjolly, on 08 June 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

I think this is a common argument for skeptics, that because some wag pulls a stunt this is then cited as evidence that the whole phenomena is a joke.  The classic example of all time occurred with the crop circle phenomena in England when two old timers named 'Doug' and 'Dave' came forward claiming credit for all the formations that had ever occurred.  

It was part strategy to try and kill the public's interest and part delusion; they genuinely believed that they had created them.

It's a classic strategy and easy to spot.

[psyche101]

 mrjolly, on 08 June 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

Can any one of the claims such as hovering or silent be verified, or are we talking some random recollections? Parallax error can account for height and noise easily. But all in all the sightings were varied and many, and obviously not all could be the pilots, just the larger majority of reports. After all, this is not misidentification, the pilots pulled a deliberate hoax.
And with the pilots gone, my question to Zoser is how many reports are now left, and what can be considered credible? Zoser is saying that this is a good case fo Alien, but I just do not see how. We had a professional group deliberately organising a hoax, therefore leading to hype, and as such, every light in the sky would be reported as a UFO.
The point I am trying to make is can you trust one single sighting after knowing this? And if so, how can one claim a light in the sky is an Alien ship? With the Pilots confessions, we know for certain that many made this basic mistake. Is that all it ook to create the Hudson Valley flap? Can any single person honestly say "no"?

[psyche101]

 zoser, on 08 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Maybe the confessions just are not convincing enough?  People know what planes look like and sound like.  This was different.

And some people believe they can determine a spaceship from a red blue or green light in the distance can they?

How this was different is we have an outright confession. No guessing games, no wondering, a large part had to be the deliberately set up hoax. Do you think a few confused people are more likely to be right than a bunch of pilots directly involved with the incident?