4705 replies to this topic

[badeskov]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

What makes you say it's a Hoax?

You could maybe have clicked the link and educated yourself a bit instead of putting on display your lack of knowledge in a lot of these cases. I is all explained in the link, but you really do not like links that points to skeptical content, do you? Besides that, said image has been suspicious from the beginning and many good arguments for that it was fake has been presented. I guess those also went over your head.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[zoser]

badeskov, on 20 June 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

You could maybe have clicked the link and educated yourself a bit instead of putting on display your lack of knowledge in a lot of these cases. I is all explained in the link, but you really do not like links that points to skeptical content, do you? Besides that, said image has been suspicious from the beginning and many good arguments for that it was fake has been presented. I guess those also went over your head.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I did click on the link and read it.  But one piece of writing is just as good as another isn't it?  Just like you always say to me 'how do you know it's valid'?  The answer is we will never know.  Better to listen to the guys who were there is what I always say.  Watch a good doc and it will all become clear.

[badeskov]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Any photo could be a hoax, and I don't know how others feel but my view has always been to rely on testimony.  That Belgian photo real or not makes zero impact on the credibility of the case.  We have testimonies from the Belgian Air Force both in the air and on the ground, a variety of police officers and members of the public over a wide area and over a period of time.  A hoax picture?  Maybe, maybe not but either way it makes not a jot of difference.  Boo you must really know this surely?

What you have is the Belgian Air Force themselves pinning it down as natural phenomena. And the police officers reported individual lights moving independently. Even one of the most staunch ET proponents (Professor Auguste Meessen) in this case in the end conceded that it was most likely atmospheric phenomena.

That is what you have.

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: Some more information (warning, skeptical content).

[badeskov]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I did click on the link and read it.  But one piece of writing is just as good as another isn't it?

No, it is not. Some can be checked and verified, some can not. This belongs in the former category.

Quote

Just like you always say to me 'how do you know it's valid'?  The answer is we will never know.  Better to listen to the guys who were there is what I always say.  Watch a good doc and it will all become clear.

We have the guy who took the picture admitting it is fake. We have photo-analysts making a replica of the photo very simply. We have inconsistencies in his original story, which spurred the suspicion that it was fake. We have experts stating that was was seen was consistent with a meteorological phenomenon (even one of the ET proponents).

Cheers,
Badeskov

[zoser]

badeskov, on 20 June 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

What you have is the Belgian Air Force themselves pinning it down as natural phenomena. And the police officers reported individual lights moving independently. Even one of the most staunch ET proponents (Professor Auguste Meessen) in this case in the end conceded that it was most likely atmospheric phenomena.

That is what you have.

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: Some more information (warning, skeptical content).

I guess you must have watched different documentaries to me.  Could you post a link to the clips please?  I would like to hear their testimonies regarding the 'atmospheric black flying triangles phenomena'

[booNyzarC]

Wow...

[badeskov]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I guess you must have watched different documentaries to me.  Could you post a link to the clips please?  I would like to hear their testimonies regarding the 'atmospheric black flying triangles phenomena'

I don't watch "documentaries", because they are not - far from it in fact. They are biased towards entertainment, which has certainly been pointed out to you often enough. One could read a little bit at UFOevidence.org:

Quote

The Electronic War Center (EWC) of the Air Force undertook a much more detailed technical analysis of the F-16 computerized radar tapes, led by Col. Salmon and physicist M. Gilmard. Their study was completed in 1992 and was later reviewed by Professor Meessen.

Although many aspects of this case still remain unexplained, Meessen and SOBEPS have basically accepted the Gilmard-Salmon hypothesis that some of the radar contacts were really "angels" caused by a rare meteorological phenomenon. This became evident in four lock-ons, "where the object descended to the ground with calculations showing negative [emphasis added] altitude... It was evidently impossible that an object could penetrate the ground, but it was possible that the ground could act as a mirror." Meessen explained how the high velocities measured by the Doppler radar of the F-16 fighters might result from interference effects. He points out, however, that there is another radar trace for which there is no explanation to date. As for the visual sightings of this event by the gendarmes and others, Meessen suggests that they could possibly have been caused by stars seen under conditions of "exceptional atmospheric refraction."136

Bolding mine. Here it should be noted that it was Meessen and SOBEPS that initially concluded that it had to be ET (based on some rather shoddy research, I daresay). I couldn't readily find the description of the individually moving lights, but I'll look through some of my older posts and see if I can locate it.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 20 June 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[zoser]

badeskov, on 20 June 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

I don't watch "documentaries", because they are not - far from it in fact. They are biased towards entertainment, which has certainly been pointed out to you often enough. One could read a little bit at UFOevidence.org:



Bolding mine. Here it should be noted that it was Meessen and SOBEPS that initially concluded that it had to be ET (based on some rather shoddy research, I daresay). I couldn't readily find the description of the individually moving lights, but I'll look through some of my older posts and see if I can locate it.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Amazing, so hundreds of Belgians were in fact fooled by this rare unheard of before atmospheric phenomena that lasted for a good few months?  Naa sounds like a load of science fiction to me.  Good luck with the video clips.  You find them and I'll watch them.  I love a good documentary as you know,  You can't beat a good witness testimony can you?  Goodnight for now.

Z

[badeskov]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Amazing, so hundreds of Belgians were in fact fooled by this rare unheard of before atmospheric phenomena that lasted for a good few months?

Might very well have been. Fooled by rare atmospheric conditions and a kind of mass hysteria. Somebody sees something and suddenly everybody sees it. Pretty well known and pretty well documented. Certainly neither a first nor a last.

Quote

Naa sounds like a load of science fiction to me.

I am sure it does. Unfortunately said science fiction is pretty well documented, in stark contrast to ET. You have also been pointed to the Hessdalen phenomena. Since you prefer video clips, here are a few:

Video 1 (3MB).
Video 2. (87MB)
Video 3 (18MB).

Quite captivating if you ask me.

Quote

Good luck with the video clips.  You find them and I'll watch them.  

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer to read written, properly sourced reports and data I can cross-reference.

Quote

I love a good documentary as you know,

If they just were documentaries

Quote

You can't beat a good witness testimony can you?

Hard data always beats a witness testimony.

Quote

Goodnight for now.

Good night, Zoser.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Sweetpumper]

Good night?

How many hours a night do some of you guys spend on this crap?

[DBunker]

Sweetpumper, on 20 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Good night?

How many hours a night do some of you guys spend on this crap?

Maybe one   if thats ok with you...... if not, I can cut it down to 20 minutes. But thats it.


ok, 15 minutes..

[psyche101]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Amazing, so hundreds of Belgians were in fact fooled by this rare unheard of before atmospheric phenomena that lasted for a good few months?  Naa sounds like a load of science fiction to me.  Good luck with the video clips.  You find them and I'll watch them.  I love a good documentary as you know,  You can't beat a good witness testimony can you?  Goodnight for now.

Z

Hessdalen Phenomena has been recorded officially for years on end and it display the qualities described by the Belgian claims. Thousands of witnesses, and how many photos? One fake?

You only find witness testimony attractive because the wild guesses that people are making is what you want to hear. If you were truly interested in the phenomena, you would look at the entire picture. I have yet to see you do this.

You called Atmospheric Plasma science fiction, as such, your definitions are not very credible.

[psyche101]

Nuke_em, on 20 June 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Man all your comments are aggressive and not rich in any other way than negative... You will believe only if UFO will land in your backyard... And naturally it is a hoax, all 38 million encounters from modern history are hoaxs and pranks, even thou you weren't there you will believe someone elses word that they were pranks & hoaxes but the wittness's who saw entire events are dissmissed. Fascinating way of thinking you have there...Thats why i am barely opening this site... forum made for disscusions is made for supression we don't need your government to explain we have scientist like you who can..  Fight fire with fire..

Hi Nuke
I have to beg to differ

Quote

Lonnie Zamora famous UFO story a hoax?

http://ufocon.blogsp...amous-1964.html

That is really a very benign comment and simply adding to the conversation. Mate you cannot have a "you are with us or against us" attitude to the phenomena, that just wont work. You have to look at both sides and present the evidence, personal feelings do not matter, only proof does. That is all Hazz offered was what proof exists and an alternative explanation. Surely you agree with that?

Cheers.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I guess you must have watched different documentaries to me.  Could you post a link to the clips please?  I would like to hear their testimonies regarding the 'atmospheric black flying triangles phenomena'

They are still not documentaries, even if you personally believe they are. You only fool yourself with that one.

How is this for testimony?



The Belgian Air Force tried to identify the alleged intruder(s) and, on three occasions, launched F-16 aircraft. On one occasion, two F-16 registered rapid changes in speed and altitude which were well outside of the performance envelope of existing aircraft.
Nevertheless, the pilots could not establish visual contact and the investigation revealed that specific weather conditions may have caused electromagnetic interferences and false returns on the radar screens. The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 20 June 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

The Tantalising Testimonies continue.  Texas December 2007 and Ricky Sorrels is out in the woods and has a close encounter.  He stands underneath the craft for approximately 3 mins and is able to see it in detail.  I'm sure the clip mentions that he has a scoped rifle with him, but not sure if he used it to get a closer look.  He described the craft as massive.  Only a short clip this time.

Ahh Rick Sorrells. The guy who told everyone on the Larry King show about how he was threatened with death if he spoke up. How does that work?

Another one who thinks the military "gets to people" by flying helicopters around.