12978 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

badeskov on Oct 27 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

Yes and no. Again, I am not sure which UFO reports you are specifically talking about, so I can't really say why in that context. However, plasmas can do different things that seems to be a deliberate effort to avoid/follow a plane:

1) it can slipstream, i.e. be caught in the plane's slip stream and follow it. But it should be gone when the energy to maintain it is removed.

2) It can react to radar waves, i.e. if a planes radar locks onto a plasma, it'll create an influx of energy on one side that can increase the degree of ionization on one side and thus effectively create thrust.

3) The atmosphere can experience magnetic ducting, where plasmas can be held in such. However, a plane is metallic and thus a huge magnetic disturbance that will incur perturbations in the magnetic field guiding the plasma.

Are you implying that the  Minot AFB, B-52 encounter could have been a form of  plasma? Check out the facts surrounding that case and tell us all, if that case involved plasma.

In fact, see if you can pin plasma to any of these case files and if not, then you have a problem, and no small one at that.

1. The 1976 Iranian UFO Dogfight

2. The B-29 Incident

3. Shag Harbor

4. The Belgian Incidents

5. Rendlesham Incidents

6. P-61 Black Widow Encounter

7. Japan Airlines Flt 1628 Encounter

8. The Minot AFB Incident

9. The Roswell Incident

10, The Muroc AAF Sightings

11. The Edwards AFB Indent

12. The 1952 Washington D.C. Incidents

13. The Malmstrom AFB Incidents

14. The RB-47 Encounter

15. The UFO Sighting of Kelly Johnson

16. The Kirtland AFB Incidents

17. The Bariloche Incidents

18. UFOs over Nuclear Facilities

19. Lakenhealth UFO

[skyeagle409]

Are these probes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys7nmBUwj3o...feature=related

[Blacksabbath]

Hmm, obsession is a bad thing

[skyeagle409]

Blacksabbath on Oct 27 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

Hmm, obsession is a bad thing

If you saw what I have seen, and uncovered what I have uncovered, and have compatriots reveal to you, what they have revealed to me, then you will know why, so I will reiterate my claim:

ET vistitation is a reality________________< >

Additionally, just about every air force base where I was sent TDY, were also involved in UFO incidents.


If you check out this video from timeline: 7:00 to the end, you will see what I have mean in regards to intelligently controlled flying objects. In this case, the pilot indicated that one of the objects shot an electromagnetic pulse at his aircraft, which disabled part of the electronics aboard his aircraft. That incident was not only documented on paper from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and on the website of the National Security Agency (NSA), this incident went all the way up to the White House and was tracked by one of NORAD's DSP satellites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31YpQ-ocX_c...feature=related

The injection of an electromagnetic pulse into shielded cables at Malmstrom AFB, is what the Boeing Co. engineers and other defense contractors had determined, which knocked Minuteman missiles off-line. My base was involved in that investigation as well and the missile commander has said that at the time of the shutdowns, there was a UFO hovering nearby, and he blames ET for the incidents.

The Investigation Revealed:
_________________________________________________

["One conclusion was that the only way a pulse or noise could be sent in from outside the shielded system was through an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from an unknown source. The technology of the day made generating an EMP of sufficient magnitude to enter the shielded system a very difficult proposition, requiring large, heavy, bulky equipment. The source of the actual pulse that caused the missile shutdowns remains a mystery to this day."]

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm
_________________________________________________

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 October 2008 - 06:03 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

That's the first time i've heard that pilot speak about that incident, providing additional info I wasn't aware of. Interesting it should be a diamond shape too, I hadn't heard that either, rather unusual, infact only mentioned in a handfull of credible cases i've read about.

Have you spoken to pilots yourself, about dogfights, or engaged in anything similiar in your time in the Air Force, Skyeagle?

[Hazzard]

Badeskov wrote...

Quote

Quote

The balls of light which appear in the Hessdalen valley in Norway are exemplary of anomalous atmospheric luminous phenomena that occur frequently at some locations on Earth.

Quote

In general they consist of light balls of many forms and colors, characterized by pulsations, often erratic movements, occasional long duration, and intense emission of energy. Their dimensions range from decimeters up to 30 m.

Sounds familiar?

Quote

During that campaign, it was also demonstrated that these lights often produce a strong radar signature with a peculiar behavior. Once a bright light was radar-tracked moving at 8500 m/s (the radar was working at 3 cm).

Again, sounds familiar?

Quote

Several attempts were made to get a reaction. The lights ''responded'' almost always by changing their flashing sequence from a regular flashing mode to a regular double-flashing mode and returning to a regular flashing mode after the laser beam was moved away (Strand, 1985, 2000).

Here we have something that is intensely luminous, provides a strong radar signature, can move fast and highly erratically (seeming intelligently), reacting to outside stimuli ... (in this case a laser beam). This is why I can simply not take a report from 1968 as being relevant, as it reflects what they knew at the time about atmospheric events, and recent science very obviously contradicts what was stated then.

This is why we need the irrefutable evidence, as otherwise we simply do not know. We can speculate, but that is all we can currently do.



My point not being that we can say that our UFO sightings indeed are plasmas. But my point being that until the point where we can eliminate all earthly explanations, the sightings remain unknown. We simply do not know what they are. Period.

*Color/Bolding mine.


Yes Badeskov, that was exactly what I was after...It sounds to me, that the atmospheric plasma phenomenon could explain, not all, but many of these UFO cases reported over the years...maybe even some of those we have been talking about here.  


Many thanks for the recap B, and sorry for "draging you back in" again. I know you have other, more important things,
to do right now.

Edited by hazzard, 27 October 2008 - 08:49 PM.

[Syaoransbear]

We should all just put video cameras on our roof!

[Splodgenessabounds]

skyeagle409 on Oct 27 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

Are these probes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys7nmBUwj3o...feature=related

Closer inspection leads me to believe it was a Tyrannosaurus Rex shaped weather ballon

[Alienated Being]

Sky, there's no use in conversing with these skeptics. They're not going to accept ET visitation until a body is provided, so what's the use in bringing up more and more information which is clearly not convincing these skeptics? I believe that something beyond our terrestrial comprehension is occurring, but that's me. I think you should give up on trying to convince skeptics, as they're clearly not buying it. Let them drown in their own lake of narrow mindedness.

[badeskov]

F-16 Falcon on Oct 27 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Sky, there's no use in conversing with these skeptics. They're not going to accept ET visitation until a body is provided, so what's the use in bringing up more and more information which is clearly not convincing these skeptics? I believe that something beyond our terrestrial comprehension is occurring, but that's me. I think you should give up on trying to convince skeptics, as they're clearly not buying it. Let them drown in their own lake of narrow mindedness.

You can believe what you will, nobody will heckle our for that. But this thread is about scientific evidence, of which there is absolutely none and which you by your statements above clearly do not understand the basics of. Narrow mindedness is eliminating options out of faith and not from a factual basis, certainly not something us skeptics are guilty of - I could easily point my finger elsewhere, but I will refrain from doing so. There is a reason why said information has not been convincing, which has been pointed out numerous times. Why don't you, like sky scanner for instance, form your own opinion and ask some relevant questions pertaining to the matter at hand?!

I would, however, like to ask you a question since you are in the "ET science thread": what do you think is scientific evidence and how do you think the scientific criteria for evidence has been met?!  

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Alienated Being]

badeskov on Oct 27 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

You can believe what you will, nobody will heckle our for that. But this thread is about scientific evidence, of which there is absolutely none and which you by your statements above clearly do not understand the basics of. Narrow mindedness is eliminating options out of faith and not from a factual basis, certainly not something us skeptics are guilty of - I could easily point my finger elsewhere, but I will refrain from doing so. There is a reason why said information has not been convincing, which has been pointed out numerous times. Why don't you, like sky scanner for instance, form your own opinion and ask some relevant questions pertaining to the matter at hand?!

I would, however, like to ask you a question since you are in the "ET science thread": what do you think is scientific evidence and how do you think the scientific criteria for evidence has been met?!  

Cheers,
Badeskov

In all honesty, science doesn't hold all of the answers. I am not going to live my life governed by science. I know the basics of "scientific evidence", but the fact is I simply do not rely on science 100% as it does not always prove what is right or what is wrong. The thing is, we may not have a body on TV... but there are a hell of a lot of credible individuals out there who would not reveal information regarding UFOs unless they had good reasoning. Hell, some even risked their jobs and lives. That tells me something right there - something beyond our range of knowledge is definitely going on, and just because some scientists have not released such information... that doesn't mean that something is not occurring on an ET level in this world. If you want to put 100% faith into science, you be my guest. I sure as hell won't. That would be the most stupid move anybody could make.

[MID]

badeskov on Oct 27 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

I would, however, like to ask you a question since you are in the "ET science thread": what do you think is scientific evidence and how do you think the scientific criteria for evidence has been met?!  

Cheers,
Badeskov

Ooohh...good question, Bade!

I shall await an answer to that one...in eager anticipation!

[Captain Zim]

badeskov on Oct 27 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

Indeed. Any coherent light with the energy to push you around would leave you significantly lighter as it would have vaporized your chest in the process

Cheers,
badeskov

Not to mention left him blind. Just the energy scattered by air and dust would have fried his retinas. It does however recall some studies using UV lasers to ionise air and provide a channel for a high-voltage taser pulse. Anyway, I don't buy the story.

[Captain Zim]

badeskov on Oct 27 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Terrestrial plasmas are the broader term for plasmas here on Earth. But lets just call them atmospheric plasmas to narrow it down. But lets get down to the more interesting parts of a plasma. You do not need a magnetic field to create and maintain a plasma, you need energy. And such energy can be created in many ways. You can make one in your microwave oven if you are so inclined. Also, when you rub a plastic stick wit a dry cloth to create static electricity, you build up charges and when discharged, you get a tiny lightening strike, which is a plasma. Same can happen in the atmosphere. When you have layer of air moving at different velocities, you can get friction that in turn can create differences in potentials. But the fact is that such exists and we still don't know why and how they are created and maintained. we just know that they are.

All of these processes require specific conditions and are very short-lived. No particular weather or geomagnetic condition is associated with UFOs. The possibility of "vortex plasma" can't be ruled out, but it frankly requires new science to explain it.

Quote

I have quoted the Hessdalen studies some times, but I don't mind doing it again. Here we have plasmas that exhibit such behaviors as UFOs exhibit. Again, they don't know why and how, and especially why it is happening just there. They can just observe that it is. From one of my earlier posts

Regards the Hessdalen lights, there is no conclusive evidence as to what they are. The observations to date have not been able to account for their behaviour and one cannot even be sure that they *are* plasma. In fact, it appears that until 1994 it was widely believed to be a hoax. It is not so "done and dusted" as you are making out. Some researchers are taking the angle that they may be some form of SETV (their acronym to avoid UFO ridicule).

Fact 1: Luminosity increases as a function of surface area, not temperature (no blackbody relationship)
Fact 2: The gaussian light pattern emitted from the Hessdalen lights was thought to be consistent with plasma but has now been shown to be consistent with a solid, uniform lumnous surface (ie like a fluorescent bulb).

I can argue that the observed Hessdalen lights have some characteristics of a possible natural plasma, but not all. Therefore they are still unexplained. In this particular case I still suspect that it's natural, but that's as far as I can guess.

Quote

Here we have something that is intensely luminous, provides a strong radar signature, can move fast and highly erratically (seeming intelligently), reacting to outside stimuli (in this case a laser beam). This is why I can simply not take a report from 1968 as being relevant, as it reflects what they knew at the time about atmospheric events, and recent science very obviously contradicts what was stated then.

As I have noted, there is no coherent scientific explanation for that. Additionally, the Hessdalen lights often had no radar signature.

Quote

This is why we need the irrefutable evidence, as otherwise we simply do not know. We can speculate, but that is all we can currently do.

Agreed.

Quote

My point not being that we can say that our UFO sightings indeed are plasmas. But my point being that until the point where we can eliminate all earthly explanations, the sightings remain unknown. We simply do not know what they are. Period.

In science there are such things as "leading theories." My personal position is that the ETH is the leading hypothesis, as it answers the most questions and fits with the evidence the best.

Edited by Captain Zim, 28 October 2008 - 01:15 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

Skyeagle its a wall we face in the thread the best thing you have done all along is stay stead fast in your method.I cheer you for this! Its a long line of Belivers and disbelivers that are here to speak there point of views.But to take it away from either side is a wrong in the First degree. Keep-em-comeing.