12978 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Sky Scanner on Oct 26 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

But when you have veteran pilots, with 20, 30+ yrs flight experience, some with flight hours in the region of 10,000 hrs under their belt and they report an object, not a light source but an actual unknown object in view of their plane, and some of these objects reported are tremendous in size. In one case alone the US military reported an object that was similiar to that described by Captain Kenju Terauchi in Nov 86 above Alaska, an object he described as being about twice the size of an aircraft carrier, the US military made reference to this case when in convo with ground control, whilst commenting this object was 40 ft off their plane. I think it's safe to assume that qualified experts in the field of flying would know the difference between a light and object that is only 40ft from their plane.

Given that, I would like to know what info you have that pushes the explanation for this and many other similiar sightings towards a natural phenomena?

There are folks who are here for no other purpose than to try to debunk UFO reports, and this is just another case.

He was one of  those for whom I had to present historical facts on radar systems of the 1950's in order to prove him wrong, which he implied that radar technology wsn't reliable back during the 1950's.

Another skeptic still here, tried to do the same when he tried to debunk the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents by implying that radar technology wasn't reliable, so those UFOs, in his mind, were the result of radar glitches, not taking into an account that the UFOs were confirmed visually by aircrews and ground-based observers, so it was amazing how he arrived at the notion that the UFOs were nothing more  than radar glitches.

[skyeagle409]

badeskov on Oct 26 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

A single observation of an event is not usable in the context of science, which this thread pertains to. That eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable in the first place adds to why eye witness reports are simply not enough.
Cheers,
Badeskov

They were reliable enough in the Japan airlines Flt 1628 and the Minot AFB, B-52 encounters that they described the objects in detail. In fact, many of those eyewitness accounts were backed by other means, including radar, airborne and ground-based, and by optical devices.

Scientist, engineers, and meteorologist have described in detail, their own observations of flying saucers and the U.S. government took a step further by classifying the flying saucer observations of meteorogist as Top Secret.

Those same folks have even revealed their data, and I have posted some of their accounts, which the skeptics stepped around and ignored. I wonder why!

.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 06:40 PM.

[skyeagle409]

thefinalfrontier on Oct 26 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

U.S. pilot was ordered to shoot down UFO
Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:27am EDT


By Peter Griffiths

LONDON (Reuters) - Two U.S. fighter planes were scrambled and ordered to shoot down an unidentified flying object (UFO) over the English countryside during the Cold War, according to secret files made public on Monday.

One pilot said he was seconds away from firing 24 rockets at the object, which moved erratically and gave a radar reading like "a flying aircraft carrier."

The pilot, Milton Torres, now 77 and living in Miami, said it spent periods motionless in the sky before reaching estimated speeds of more than 7,600 mph.

LINK;

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49L53Z20081022

That story was also carried in the Air Force Times


Air Force Times
Retired F-86 pilot recalls attempt to shoot UFO
Wednesday Oct 22, 2008

Retired Air Force pilot Milton Torres said he flew his F-86D Sabre fighter jet with orders to shoot down a UFO in 1957 hovering over the British countryside that he said looked like an "aircraft carrier" on his radar screen.http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/...ootdown_102008/



Even the Air Force Academy reported how we tried to shoot down a flying saucer with an F-86.

________________________________________________

INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE - VOLUME II
CHAPTER XXXIII
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - USAF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

We too have fired on UFO's. About ten o'clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86's were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude.

The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer. He failed, and the UFO pulled away rapidly, vanishing in the distance.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afu.htm

______________________________________________

That was in regards to an encounter near Albuquerque, NM in 1952.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 07:04 PM.

[skyeagle409]

badeskov on Oct 26 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Are we talking about the same incident where the same people that you use for your reference also explicitly states that said UFOs were NOT extra-terrestrial?!

Couldn't have been from any of the case files I have posted, since the objects the B-52 aircrew threw in ET. And, the specifics of the 1952 incidents, also proved that objects were not ours, and additionall the Air Force's own 1969 study also trashed the claims of skeptics who said that objects were not those of ET and instead, were the result of temperature inversion.

Quote

Since you didn't have to courtesy to answer that question the last time I asked (numerous times), despite the specific question you had which I had the courtesy to answer I am not going to wait for an answer this time and put this in the same category as your usual evidence, i.e. the waste basket.

Apparently, you failed to respond to what I have posted before, so it is of no surprise as to why you posted what you did, since debunking is the name of the game.
His name is given between timeline: 4:40 and 4:60 in the following video and what is he saying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyhy6IsQBko...feature=related


___________________________________________

Navy Officer Tells

HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER
by Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

"In its January issue TRUE said that the flying saucers are real and interplanetary."

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm

_________________________________________________________

... Naval Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, head of the Naval missile program at White Sands (who unequivocally stated that the flying saucers being spotted by White Sands personnel, including himself, were not only real but extraterrestrial in origin).

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Mogul_UFOs.html

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/files/al...o_ufos_8_47.gif

________________________________________________________



MANEUVERED MOTION AND "INTELLIGENT CONTROL
What Takes Place Behind Close-doors

Following the nearly year-long 1952 UFO sighting wave in which there were repeated instances of jet interceptors chasing after UFOs that also showed on radar, the Central Intelligence Agency convened the so-called Robertson Panel to evaluate the data. Among the presentations made to the scientific panel was one by Dewey J. Fournet (USAF, Ret.) who had worked with scientific analysts conducting a rigorous motion analysis study of hardcore unexplained cases.

Edward J. Ruppelt, former Chief of the Air Force Project Blue Book investigation, later reported that the study was "very hot and very controversial...it was hot because it wasn't official and the reason it wasn't official was because it was so hot. It concluded that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships."

Air Force analysts had reached this conclusion before. Project Sign in 1948 had issued a Top Secret Estimate of the Situation drawing the same conclusion. (Hall, 1964, p. 110) But both times outside scientific consultants, on the basis of what were arguably superficial and excessively skeptical reviews, disputed the conclusion. (Hall, 1988, pp. 155-163)

Many of these jet interception cases included a sort of "cat-and-mouse" behavior on the part of the UFOs, pulling away from the pursuing jets and then slowing down until they caught up again. This behavior has been repeated throughout the history of UFOs, and is one of the many indicators of intelligence behind the phenomenon. Case after case can be cited of UFOs apparently playing interactive games with (a) military aircraft

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/hall01.htm

______________________________________________________

CHILEAN AIR FORCE RECOGNIZES UFOS AS FLYING MACHINES PILOTED BY ET INTELLIGENCE:

The other top reason that explains Chile's recognition and openness about the UFO question is that General Ramon Vega, former Commander of FACh, the Chilean Air Force, has personnally observed UFOs on two occasions while in the air.

The well known J. Antonio Huneeus reflected this official recognition with this article in Date Magazine:

http://www.cohenufo.org/Chile%20UFOs.htm

_______________________________________________________

Conclusion UFOs Are Space Ships Given SAC in 1952

A 1952 evaluation of "flying saucers" as interplanetary devices, sent to Strategic Air Command Headquarters from MacDill AFB, has been disclosed to NICAP by former information Specialist Don Widener, one of the AF men concurring in this opinion.

The spaceship conclusion was based on numerous AF sighting reports, especially those in the MacDill area. It was drawn up by the MacDill UFO project officer, an AF intelligence captain with whom Widener served. As a member of the project, Widener had access to official AF sighting reports, some of which have never been released.

http://www.nicap.org/conclusion.htm

____________________________________________________

FAA release signals new UFO 'openness policy'
Thursday, 14 August, 2008

Significant support for the testimony of multiple witnesses of a UFO seen near Stephenville Texas on January 8, 2008 came in the form of radar data recently released by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Responding to a series of Freedom of Information requests by the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the FAA supplied 2.8 million radar returns from five sites covering the area where the UFO was sighted.

Schulze and Powell claimed that some of the radar data confirmed that the object reached speeds up to 2100 mph. This was done without creating a sonic boom. They note: Much more important than the possible sudden acceleration shown by the object is its trajectory heading. This object was traveling to the southeast on a direct course towards the Crawford Ranch, also known as President Bush's western White House. The last time the object was seen on radar at 8:00pm, it was continuing on a direct path to Crawford Ranch and was only 10 miles away.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/FAA-Relea...080718-180.html

_____________________________________________________

Post #5823

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyhy6IsQBko...feature=related


_______________________________________________________


The Belgian Air Force said:

Colonel de Brouwer has gone on to explain that the maneuvers executed by these objects were done at altitudes virtually impossible for the F-16 interceptors launched for investigation to duplicate. Equally alarming, when fully considered, is the fact that these aircraft operated at speeds which definitely broke the sound barrier, but with no shock wave registering, and no sonic boom being heard by ground observers.

http://ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 08:41 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

skyeagle409 on Oct 26 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

There are folks who are here for no other purpose than to try to debunk UFO reports, and this is just another case.

Well i'm hesitant to agree 100% with you there but then I haven't been present from the start of the thread like you have. I have read the whole thread now though, and it seems that debunking the ufo reports you post is the order of the day, whilst providing credible, evidence based alternatives takes a back seat.

[skyeagle409]

Sky Scanner on Oct 26 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Well i'm hesitant to agree 100% with you there but then I haven't been present from the start of the thread like you have. I have read the whole thread now though, and it seems that debunking the ufo reports you post is the order of the day, whilst providing credible, evidence based alternatives takes a back seat.

At times, I had to pull out historical documents to prove my case, which skeptics were unaware of, and amongst them, radar technology of the 1950's. The skeptics were trying to imply that radar tecnology was too unreliable to have been a factor in the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents.

In another case, was the ability of the Air Force's C-54 to operate from Kirtland AFB during the 1940's. The skeptics were trying to discredit an Air Force C-54 crewmember in regards to the Roswell incident by implying that the C-54 couldn't operate from Kirtland AFB because, in their own words, "the runway was too short."

Had they done their homework, they would have found that the C-54 was not only capable, but the larger and heavier B-29 was capable as well. Had the skeptics done their homework correctly, they would have also found that components from the first atomic bombs were flown out of Kirtland AFB aboard the Air Force's C-54, which is why I decided to post the history of the atomic bombs for them to read.

That is typical of the way they have been trying to debunk the case files in this thread because they did not know the rest of the story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 07:38 PM.

[makaya325]

badeskov on Oct 26 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

A single observation of an event is not usable in the context of science, which this thread pertains to. That eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable in the first place adds to why eye witness reports are simply not enough.

Cheers,
Badeskov

it seems the doubters like to poke fun at peoples unreliability. if humans made it this far and out witted every other species, and the only one with culture, technology, observation etc. i think its an insult to say we must be wrong all the time when it comes to seeing things

[skyeagle409]

badeskov on Oct 26 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Since you didn't have to courtesy to answer that question the last time I asked (numerous times), despite the specific question you had which I had the courtesy to answer I am not going to wait for an answer this time and put this in the same category as your usual evidence, i.e. the waste basket.

To further add from

Post #6934

Government is covering up UFO evidence, group says

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The U.S. government has been covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visits for more than 50 years, an array of 20 retired Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and intelligence officers said Wednesday.

They demanded Congress hold hearings on what they say is long-standing secret U.S. involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufosgovernmentwitnessestestify

_________________________________________________________


Military Nuclear Specialists Testify To UFO Reality

http://www.cohenufo......O Reality.htm

______________________________________

"Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligences."
.
-Rear Admiral Delmar Fahrney, U.S. Navy Missile Chief


In concealing the evidence of UFO operations, the Air Force is making a serious mistake."
.
-Lt. Colonel James McAshan, USAF

http://www.ufoeviden...nts/doc1743.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 08:18 PM.

[Blacksabbath]

skyeagle409 on Oct 26 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

You can go back over the many documents, data, and other evidence that I have posted in this and other threads.

I have challendged the skeptics to refute my claim on ET reality in regards to what I have already posted, and so far, they have been unable to do so, which  pretty much sums it up that they can't.

Skeptics may not be able to "disprove" that their aliens, not that it's their job, neither can you prove they are indeed aliens from another world. All you bring up are claims, and visual content of things you do not know what they are. That proves nothing, their only speculations of what those things  could be. Not to mention the skeptic isn't entitled to "disprove" the believers opinions.

Back to santa:

Billy: Santa is real, HE IS HE IS!!!!
Bob: Prove it...
Billy: YOU PROVE THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!

[skyeagle409]

Blacksabbath on Oct 26 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Skeptics may not be able to "disprove" that their aliens, not that it's their job, neither can you prove they are indeed aliens from another world.

You know my claim and I have repeadedly challenged he skeptics to refute my claim. You see, I understand what the data depicts and what it is saying, which simply indicates why the debunkers have been unsuccessful in trying to debunk UFOs.

Now, if I had said that the UFOs, which were tracked on radar as they maneuvered around aircraft, was planet Jupiter, then I am sure that you would have jumped on onboard with that false statement. After all, that is what some skeptics have already done.

Now once again, in regards to the F-16's radar data, was that object ours?

You can also revert back to this statement.


"No agency in this country or Russia is able to duplicate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radars and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve... there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds."

ADMIRAL DELMER S. FAHMEY
Former Head U.S. Navy Guided-Missile Program
New York Times, Page 31, January 17, 1957

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 October 2008 - 08:44 PM.

[makaya325]

Blacksabbath on Oct 26 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Skeptics may not be able to "disprove" that their aliens, not that it's their job, neither can you prove they are indeed aliens from another world. All you bring up are claims, and visual content of things you do not know what they are. That proves nothing, their only speculations of what those things  could be. Not to mention the skeptic isn't entitled to "disprove" the believers opinions.

Back to santa:

Billy: Santa is real, HE IS HE IS!!!!
Bob: Prove it...
Billy: YOU PROVE THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!

ur acting childish sabbath. sky is not asking u to prove they dont exist, thats a logical fallancy. yet its a legitimate question for skeptics like me to prove they have a man made explanation, thats different from proving a negative.

santa claus was a real person. see saint nick

[Sky Scanner]

skyeagle409 on Oct 26 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

[b]Government is covering up UFO evidence, group says

Whilst I disagree with their stance, to a degree I can understand it.

Quote

We have stacks of reports of flying saucers. We have to take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them.

- General Benjamin Chidlaw, Commanding General of Air Defence Command.

That comment was made in 1953, how many more can be added to that list 55 yrs later!

[DONTEATUS]

6942 what a world,what a world. Skyeagle is still just reporting the  data that is to our knowledge all thats been released to date,wait till the Good stuff gets released.The parts and peices,touchie,smellie goodies.Its comeing. Soon!

[thefinalfrontier]

You wont get no argument from me about ufos not being real because they are, I seen a black triangle in 2003,
I dropped in to post this link of a crashed ufo in Russia,

LINK;

http://www.ufocasebook.com/russia1969.html

TFF

[Alienated Being]

Blacksabbath on Oct 26 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Skeptics may not be able to "disprove" that their aliens, not that it's their job, neither can you prove they are indeed aliens from another world. All you bring up are claims, and visual content of things you do not know what they are. That proves nothing, their only speculations of what those things  could be. Not to mention the skeptic isn't entitled to "disprove" the believers opinions.

Back to santa:

Billy: Santa is real, HE IS HE IS!!!!
Bob: Prove it...
Billy: YOU PROVE THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!

You're comparing two different things here - ET beings and Santa Claus. They're entirely different. It's like comparing Martha Stewart to a ham... it just doesn't make sense.

We have evidence suggesting the possibility of ET beings piloting craft on our planet. What do we have on Santa Claus? Nothing, except for the fact that the modern mythological figure is based off of a saint from the 19th century. Learn how to make comparisons properly without making yourself out to be a fool.

I have to ask something... it has been bugging me for the longest time. Sky used to work in the airforce, if I am not mistaken... therefore, how can some of you simply challenge him and claim that what he is arguing (with regards to the airforce sightings and airforce based data) is false? He clearly has more knowledge of the airforce when compared to the majority of the UM users who log on daily, so it baffles my mind to see how some people can argue against his knowledge of the airforce and airforce related data (such as radar coordinates, etc).

Edited by F-16 Falcon, 26 October 2008 - 09:07 PM.