[Czero 101]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 08:06 PM, said:

No, I pinning it on my knowledge of NORAD's capabilities, hence, no satellite responsible for that 1984 incident.

Yet your "knowledge" is based on alleged "evidence" that you refuse to present.

To that end, your claims are nothing more than opinion and not conclusive of anything except your own delusions and the near psychotic need to appear to be right.





Cz

[Czero 101]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 08:08 PM, said:

Just a matter of outlining my connections, that extends throughout the Air Force and within the aviation community, and look what you posted.

Just more of your rambling about unnamed people that YOU CLAIM are "in the know" or are your "connections". Typical fare for a believer such as yourself, but no more believable than any other woo-woo wingnut who claims to have :inside information: from some anonymous and unnamed source.

Unfortunately for you, you've been shown to have twisted the truth and outright fabricated things all too often in the past (and lately) that even if Gen. Norton Schwartz himself were to appear on all te major news media and said that he was a close personal friend of yours, no one will believe it.

Quote

After all, I was the person who found that there were no Mogul balloon responsible for the Roswell incident and I made that determnation thanks to the Air Force, before other UFOlogist came onboard.

You're also the person who admitted to lying to so-called "skeptics" in order to trap them, and have been so far unwilling and apparently unable to produce anything even close to definitive proof of anything except your own over-inflated balloon of an ego.

Quote

What it is, is that I am in a better position to know that you are not correct on any counts in regards to the UFO enigma.

What it really is is that you are so full of s**t that your feathers are brown...





Cz

[bmk1245]

skyeagle409, on 05 November 2009 - 02:36 AM, said:

[...] I will put forth a question for you depending on how you respond, and I have made it no secret that I tend to go through official channels to get verification when the need to do so is the call for action. Since I have connections to request the use of the Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter at airshows, and, I have done so in the past, I have will have no problem sendiing an inquiry to certain channels as well.
[...]

You better bring a copy of 300p report (or at least abstract/introduction and summary) about DSP-7/UFO event, not fisherman's story.

[bmk1245]

Pericynthion, on 05 November 2009 - 02:00 AM, said:

Thanks, bmk. Excellent stuff. I can think of one other possibility for the source of the 22000 mph velocity. The perigee velocity of a geostationary transfer orbit is about 22000 mph. If this sighting really was of a disabled satellite stuck in a transfer orbit, perhaps somebody saw the calculated orbit parameters reported somewhere and latched on to that particular number rather than the apogee velocity.

I agree. Now that I think, it's more possible.

[Pericynthion]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 07:36 PM, said:

Come on, Pericynthion, tell us all, why that UFO was not a satellite. Remember, you are knowledgable on space and satellites as well, I believe. Now, prove it.

Believe me, Sky, if I had data to show that the DSP sighting was an ET spacecraft I'd be more than happy to present it here. I think it would be really exciting to find Hazzard's "Exhibit A." I'm sorry to report, though, that I don't see anything in the scant evidence presented to date that can't be explained by ordinary events. I don't know what the object really was -- there's just not enough available data -- but everything I've seen so far appears to be consistent Jeffrey Richelson's claim that this was a close encounter with a disabled satellite.

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 07:36 PM, said:

Because of your postion, I am placing you on the pedestal for a particularly good reason, and doing so in my support.

Upon reviewing your response, I will put forth a question for you depending on how you respond, and I have made it no secret that I tend to go through official channels to get verification when the need to do so is the call for action. Since I have connections to request the use of the Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter at airshows, and, I have done so in the past, I have will have no problem sendiing an inquiry to certain channels as well.

Well, you can forget about that pedestal stuff right now. I'm not going there. I hold no position here -- none of us do. With very few exceptions, we're all just anonymous people posting on a web forum. All that matters is the content of our posts. Besides, why do you need my input anyway? If you have contacts who can verify this incident, then go talk to them. Get the data to back up your claims and post it here. I think we'd all be delighted to see some real evidence.

And I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me if I don't find your connections with F-22 air show scheduling all that impressive. All it takes is a phone call or email to the Air Combat Command Aerial Events Branch at Langley AFB. They have their contact information listed on their web site (link). I really do hope you're able to keep getting the Raptor for whatever air shows you're working with. It's a damned impressive bird. I just watched it fly at Edwards a couple weeks ago. Did you get a chance to catch that show?

Regards,

P.

[Pericynthion]

bmk1245, on 04 November 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

Yes, you're right - distance must be known, otherwise you wouldn't be able to determine radiant power of the target, thus the type of the target.

Thank you, bmk. I really appreciate the feedback.

bmk1245, on 04 November 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'm not sure what exact distance was used in calculations, but common sense says it must be surface-satellite distance (minus few km due to attenuation) - satellite must detect launch as early as possible.

I agree. That seems like a good assumption.

bmk1245, on 04 November 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

In the case of close proximity there is no way to determine target's radiant power, unless distance is known (of course, if target is known, then you can calculate distance - as astronomers determine distances to the galaxies).

BTW, earlier I posted intensity of 3 kW/m² at DSP's aperture plane (if UFO was 3 km from DSP-7), but this number is wrong (waaayyy off) - I made childish error in simple calculation (how embarrassing... ) - correct number would be 1 W/m², sorry about that... 3 orders less, but still blinding.

Thanks for the updated numbers. If we assume that the intensity plot is real and that it represents the data as reported by the satellite, then it seems likely that the calculated intensities are distorted by an incorrect target distance assumption. Do you think this might possibly explain the high intensity levels? This is all just speculation, of course, but I find it interesting to think about.

Regards,

P.

[Hazzard]

This has to be the worst song and dance BS routine that I have ever seen, in any forum, EVER.

But that is Skyeagles "thing", (it sure isnt presenting credible evidence), when the chips are all on the plate and his argument fails...he dodges, and gives us the old circular run-around nonsense...



* Posts the radar numbers.

*Claims that NASA, NORAD, USAF, all know about these visitors.

* Ask.. "was the craft ours or those of ETs".

* Claims.. "There is more to that story".

* Do the inside play.. "In the public eye, the military says, unknown, but when their doors are closed, they say, ET".

* Re-defines words like Scientific, Irrefutable, Physical, Evidence, etc.

* Or... "I was right about Roswell, there was no weather balloon that day". So, of course, that means there is an ET cover-up!!

* When realy against the wall... "Just another UFO debunker ploy!!...Armchair debunkers!!... Look what you posted"!!!...

* Posts a long list of scientists, military personel, CIA, FBI, Doctors, Astronomers, Astronauts, that, like him, all believe that some UFOs might be ET crafts. (They dont have any proof either, they are only stating their opinion.)

A regular puke-fest if you ask me...



Skyeagle never could tell the difference between UFOs and alien spaceships. To him, a UFO is an alien craft till skeptics prove him wrong.

This post has been edited by Hazzard: 05 November 2009 - 08:48 AM

[bmk1245]

Pericynthion, on 05 November 2009 - 07:05 AM, said:

[...] Do you think this might possibly explain the high intensity levels? This is all just speculation, of course, but I find it interesting to think about.

Regards,

P.

From data in Table1 (Surveillance by Satellites, page 182 (13)), i.e. minimum detectable target intesity = 15 kW/sr/band and intensity dynamic range 200:1 (I wish scan would be a little bit better) plus distance 36000 km, I can derive max intensity - 3 MW/sr (or in W/m² - 1.2*10^-11 and 2.3*10^-9 respectively). If we have something of 9000 kW/sr (!!!) at 3 km distance, that will be 1 W/m². Thus, such intesities (1 W/m²) are far beyond max intensity (2.3*10^-9 W/m²) detectors can manage (imagine you are staring at searchlight).
So, all estimations points to detected signal by DSP-7 of order 10^-10 W/m² from nearby object which corresponds to radiant intesity somewhere in 9*10^-4 W/sr. Or in other words, object wasn't so "hot".

PS if I made errors in estimations, I hope badeskov will correct me.

PPS BTW one more thing bothers me - from the doodle in MUFON journal object "flies" in opposite direction relative to DSP-7. So it was slower or it was actually flying in opposite direction? Or its just a view from South pole?

This post has been edited by bmk1245: 05 November 2009 - 10:33 AM

[badeskov]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 04:23 PM, said:

Nope! There is much more!

Since you refuse to bring out this "much more", I can only conclude that this "much more" is a figment of your imagination and does not exist. Otherwise, for the last time, present it.

Quote

Reality is not spelled; b-e-l-i-e-f.

Find a mirror and repeat to yourself, please.

Quote

Haven't you learn anything about what has been presented?

Yes. You don't have anything and you don't have the ability to differentiate fantasy and imagination.

Quote

but the skeptics could have saved themselves a lot of headaches had they listened to me in the first place.

That would be neck pains from shaking our heads.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 05:26 PM, said:

On the contrary, they have confirmed that their DSP satellites detect similar UFOs 2-3 times per month. Surprise that were not aware of that, but, I think you were aware.

I think Peri is well aware of that fact. As are others. But you seem unaware that said UFOs are either identified by later analysis or remain unknown. Almost certainly, none has ever been designated ET spacecraft by NORAD. Only in your mind does UFO equal ET.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

Pericynthion, on 04 November 2009 - 05:08 PM, said:

Good point. I noticed that, too. Looks like a period of around 2 minutes, which would be consistent with a slowly-rotating disabled satellite. Could be many other things, though, too.

I concur, Peri. The very uniform sinusoidal radiance curve is indeed consistent with a slowly rotating satellite (disable or not). Frankly, that was what first sprang to my mind when seeing the figure.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

Take a guess!

Translation: I have no idea what I am talking and I am just spewing a lot of tech jargon to seem knowledgeable.

Good grief, Sky. You are truly amazing.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

skyeagle409, on 04 November 2009 - 05:36 PM, said:

Come on, Pericynthion, tell us all, why that UFO was not a satellite. Remember, you are knowledgable on space and satellites as well, I believe. Now, prove it.

I think Peri has done en excellent job of showing why it could be a satellite. As have Cz and bmk. You have done nothing but spreading utter imaginative and disjoint claims.

Quote

Because of your postion, I am placing you on the pedestal for a particularly good reason, and doing so in my support.

And he deserves the pedestal given how well thought out his posts are, how thorough his data analysis is and how meticulous he references his sources. A true joy to read. As well do others.

Quote

Upon reviewing your response, I will put forth a question for you depending on how you respond, and I have made it no secret that I tend to go through official channels to get verification when the need to do so is the call for action.

You have been asked to do that many times and you have yet to show a single example of you actually actually doing that.

Moreover, I posted this:

badeskov, on 04 November 2009 - 05:56 AM, said:

OK, now I am certain that you have no facts to back you up whatsoever and you are simply peddling your own belief. That paragraph was probably the worst appeal to authority that I have ever seen - and the most pathetic. It is outright laughable.
...

and a single page later you post:

Quote

Since I have connections to request the use of the Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter at airshows, and, I have done so in the past, I have will have no problem sendiing an inquiry to certain channels as well.

Incredible. That completely trumphs your post that I replied to above; something that is so ludicrous that it is not even funny.

Frankly, I didn't think that less than zero credibility existed, but in that sense I now stand corrected. You have clearly demonstrated that zero credibility is indeed possible to attain. Just a pity the test subject is yourself. I also posted this in the same post:

Quote

frankly, I don't care one wit either who you know unless you can pry some verifiable data out of your "important contacts".

I think you completely missed that part. But since you need to have everything explained to you, then let me be very, very clear and very, very blunt: I don't believe one word of what you are saying! You are showing an incredible lack of understanding of radar for a pilot and have shown an amazing ability to even botch up aviation terms to the degree where I don't even believe that you were a pilot. I am not sure I would even trust you behind a shopping cart, let alone anything with an engine attached.

There you have it. I personally don't like to bring the credibility of other posters into question and the necessity of doing it now makes me sad, however, your continued insistence (I would actually call it bragging) on appeal to authority, your continued insistence on being in the know, and your continued insistence on not posting any substantiation forced me to be very blunt.

So, I simply do not believe one word you type. And you have brought this upon yourself. If you want to earn even a speck of respect back, I think it is about time you stop posting until you have something of substance to back it up with. If you continue to post like you have hitherto posted, that will only verify my position on your posts.

This is my own position and I shall let others judge the veracity of your claims and your means of debating for themselves.

Quote

And, based on that fact, I wish to reiterate that ET visitation is a fact.

Utter BS. Just goes to show that you have no idea what a fact actually is.

Cheers,
Badeskov

This post has been edited by badeskov: 05 November 2009 - 01:04 PM

[Scanner.....]

My only surprise in the above post is that you have managed to remain so calm and patiant for so long. I think you have accurately described what a lot of posters on here feel, well you've certainly echoed my sentiments on this particularly area anyway.

[Saru]

Just a reminder here to everyone to keep the replies as civil and non-personal as possible, attack the point being presented and not the person making those points.

skyeagle said:

I wish to reiterate that ET visitation is a fact.

Please avoid making statements like this, if it was established that ET visitation is a fact then there would be no need for this discussion - this is your personal opinion only, this has never been established as fact.

Lets keep debate tactics as honest as possible.