471 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

As for the cases, I always thought the ones that they filmed and tracked with the theodolites were important, as were the ones that followed Cmdr. McLauglin's missile.  

what is so special about them? why doesn't natural phenomenon *cough* plasma apply to those cases? please be specific.. let hear it

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The strangest UFOs of all were the ones that tripped the radiation detectors at Mt. Palomar observatory, and the small ones that were chasing around Ft. Hood for hours.  

do you still think that they should be taken out of the equation because of the duration of the observations?

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Microm just brushed all those off with a sentence or two, which never impresses me.

no i haven't... i have repeatedly asked you to point out the ones which you think disqualify natural phenomenon... but in the process hear you shouting back with old data (outdated observations which were fallacious to begin with)... those observations were made at a time when the science behind such phenomenon was in its infancy i.e. was not set in stone... but somehow you think that by making appeals to authority you can get around said arguments.. 'x said'... it doesn't work like that i'm afraid...

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

hello mcrom,

I think this is a good place to start......

confirmation of a 'cover up'!

I have always maintained that it seems the powers that be DID believe that some UFO cases were in fact ET.

do you agree or do you believe they just covered up an 'unknown' and did not think it was ET?

hiya quillius... what they might have thought (individually or collectively ~ a debatable can of worms itself) is a different matter altogether i.e. they could have had various beliefs based on their observations back then... but the very fact that they were still looking for answers in a paranoid manner tells me that they never figured out anything about the phenomenon in the first place imo

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

If they did think it was ET then I need to ask why? The reason I ask is that we are linking plasma due to the many characteristics mentioned...i.e. duration,metallic appearance, speed, 'attraction' to craft and vehicles etc...what if their belief/knowledge was not because of said characteristics but to do with a more direct event..i.e. have seen aliens, recovered craft, found a drone etc etc...??

we always look upon them to be in control of what they're doing, perhaps the reason why we think they knew what they were talking about... do you think that is the case?

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

If this is the case then further understanding of plasma and other UAP is irrelevant in said context dont you think?

even if, say, roswell was a reality, which i doubt... how could that disqualify the fact that plasmas exhibit all the ufo'y characteristics?

[Sweetpumper]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Some of them were even seen to go straight up into space at very high speeds, which is how many of them "disappear".  Anyone who says that never happens is just telling you something completely bogus.

I've seen that happen.

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

this alone IMO shows that not all 'flying objects' that are unidentified could fall into the UAP field unless we are to really force the old square peg into that round (disk shaped) hole...

Teodorani himself says that even though there is many elements recorded that show plasma characteristics, there is STILL and overlap of something else......

i don't believe that all uaps are plasmas... we still haven't figured out what going on in our skies and that we still have a lot to uncover... uap to me is unidentified aerial phenomena....

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Participants with a background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so.

i don't get that...

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

One participant listed the characteristics that would be expected to accompany a large plasma. These are

• thermal emission,
  
• production of ozone and odor of N₂O
  
• convective air motions,
  
• electrical and acoustic noise,
  
• unusual meteorological conditions.

i wonder how many of those characteristics were recorded in each case study...

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

All participants agreed that the UFO cases presented contained insufficient data for a definitive scientific conclusion.

something we can all agree to....

[mcrom901]

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 03 December 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

no i haven't... i have repeatedly asked you to point out the ones which you think disqualify natural phenomenon... but in the process hear you shouting back with old data (outdated observations which were fallacious to begin with)... those observations were made at a time when the science behind such phenomenon was in its infancy i.e. was not set in stone... but somehow you think that by making appeals to authority you can get around said arguments.. 'x said'... it doesn't work like that i'm afraid...

None of this is true, and I am just not going to keep answering this same type of post over and over again.

[taniwha]

Sweetpumper, on 03 December 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

I've seen that happen.

Me too

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

None of this is true,

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Life magazine ran an article in 1952 titled "Have We Visitors from Space?" which mentioned Lincoln LaPaz and the "green fireballs".  They did indeed give off some kind of copper residue, but they were not meteorites, ball lightning or anything else along those lines:

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

how did you reach to such a conclusion?

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

I didn't.  LaPaz and others reached it long ago.

[TheMacGuffin]

How did I reach such a conclusion?  I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them.  More than one of their craft have crashed (or been shot down) and the truth is that they have been shooting at 'em since 1947.

For some reason, though, an order was given not to shoot at this particular bunch, although planes were sent up after them at times, but with orders not to fire.

That much is in the record.

The ones I saw in the pictures came down shortly after the events described here, however, but not all that much later--and in the same part of the world.

Do you think a nuke could knock one of them down?  Some people at the time thought so, but of course that required presidential approval.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 December 2012 - 01:53 AM.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 December 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

How did I reach such a conclusion?  I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them.

[bee]

.


sadly mcrom...you have now reached rock bottom....

.

[DONTEATUS]

bee can you hop on one of those 27,000 mph Star ships ? Texas needs a good soul to help us through the Last Election, There seems to bee still too many Republicans in this state !

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 04 December 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will, old boy, to anybody and everybody.  Count on it.  

And think of this, microm, nothing you can do or say will change that.  It just doesn't matter.  How do you like them apples?

[TheMacGuffin]

bee, on 04 December 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

.
sadly mcrom...you have now reached rock bottom....

Psyche was on here saying that we should really take him seriously, but somehow I could never bring myself to do that.'

Now everyone can see why.  He also told me to kill myself, just for "laughs".