Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 28 votes

More Best Evidence for aliens


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25266 replies to this topic

#871    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,654 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:50 AM

View PostSpankster, on Aug 9 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

Dont go wildly chasing every piece of pro-UFO evidence. Wait for good stuff. It may never come, but its better than just following whatever comes along. And remember dude, im with ya, i'd love to find evidence today, would love it. But im not gonna undermine my own hopes by whoring out my loyalty to idiots with no evidence.

Well put :tu:

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#872    Spankster

Spankster

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined:05 Aug 2009

Posted 10 August 2009 - 08:00 AM

View PostEvangium, on Aug 10 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I applaud you for directing your attention to the large target that is Skyeagle, so early on in your time on this forum.  
Unfortunately, Sky has been peddling his take on ufology (and other things) for so long, there is no longer fact nor fiction only 'evidence'.  
Admittedly many of the cases he presents are interesting enough on there own merits, but that unfortunate spin of 'it wasn't one of ours (so therefore it was ET)' is really enough to put most people off discussing them further.  
After all, who wants to talk about something if the only 'answer' that can be given is the one that gives the other guy his ego trip?
But again, applause for stepping up to the plate so soon.  I expect Skyeagle will have one long, cut/paste, heavily edited reply for you soon ;)

Well, i just think Eagle is looking too hard is all. We both share an obvious interest and hopefulness in ET life. Im just not as readily willing to accept evidence supporting them. If i were ever to become a believer, it'd need to be something life changing to convince me.


Quote

I expect Skyeagle will have one long, cut/paste, heavily edited reply for you soon ;)

LOL, ah well, thats why im here.

Cheers, Spanky.

It doesnt really matter what you think. What matter is WHY you think it.

If you agree that in teh absence of god you would commit murder, robbery and r@pe then you reveal yourself to be an immoral person. If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveilance, you have fatally undermined your claim that god is necessary for us to be good:- Dr. Richard Dawkins

#873    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 09:22 AM

View PostHazzard, on Aug 6 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Ill accept no such thing from this clown Robert D. Morningstar ... you might aswell tell me to accept Richard C Hoaglands nonsense as fact!!

His Enterprise Mission Website is as silly as Morningstars Cyberspaceorbit.or should I say KS15s..!??

http://www.cyberspac...orningstar.html

If this guys photo analysis is scientific, then KS15 is a God damb genious!! :rolleyes:
Yes Hazzard, you must accept this reality ;)
My take on M* (Morningstar)

I personally don't think his intelligence credentials are quite so 'high level' that he would be briefing government agencies directly.  
Looking at his ufological affiliations, and conspirital leanings, I dare say anything he does would be fairly low level.  If he is fluent in Chinese language (Mandarin or Cantonese?) and has an understanding of that culture, I can see that there would be some scope for those skills to be utilised.  Again, given his ufological connections, this would be fairly low level.  There is always the possibility that 'briefing the government' actually means writing articles for civilian groups such as Jane's or Military Periscope, but based on his ufo articles, his standard of writing and analysis is at best an average standard when compared to reports and analysis I have seen from those types of agencies.  He is particularly lacking in regard to referencing.
Perhaps the biggest problem to his credibility is the blurb about him at UFO Digest, where it states that -
"since 9/11 he has advised various government agencies regarding the War on Terror about 'CommunIslam" Link

All well and good, but what is 'Communislam'?

Very little actually turns up on this 'subject', at least not in the sense of any more than the extrapolation that militant Islam tends to borrow heavily from dialouges of 'communist freedom fighters' (which in turn borrows from Marxism and the works of Mao Zedong).  Certainly nothing that establishes M* as a leading authority on the subject.  Instead we find an interesting reference from in the form of a reader comment in Truth in Media, May, 2001 (update 2 June)-

"PHOENIX, June 2 - Here is an additional reader reaction to the TiM story about the Serb church bells being banned in Kosovo:

NEW YORK - 'Communislam' - An Unholy Alliance

It's good to hear from you again.  It's been a long time… People still have not awakened to the fact that Red China has enlisted Islam as a surrogate and ally in its upcoming world power play and that the upcoming conflict will be fought along religious lines of demarcation. It is important to understand this new development and a new vocabulary will be necessary.  That is why I have coined the term "Communislam" to describe this unholy alliance.

Robert Morningstar, NY "

So he coined the term, and somehow knows that 'Red China' is pulling the strings?  I wonder how he managed to find that through open source...  
Rather than go completely off topic here, I'll just leave the suggestion that people google [china islam terrorism] and [uygur seperatists] to see where M* has taken another u-turn away from reality.

And of course, there is always this upcoming 'special' -

http://www.veritasshow.com/

Robert Morningstar
"The Moon has a Moon"
August 14, 2009

Edited by Evangium, 10 August 2009 - 09:33 AM.

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#874    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 17,140 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 10 August 2009 - 10:23 AM

Here's my take on all this:

Not all evidence is of equal value and merit. Conjecture, stories, personal experiences, while all part of human reasoning, can't take the place of solid direct evidence. If someone has personally 'seen enough' to convince them that ET is behind the UFO phenomena that's certainly an acceptable personal choice. However, 'personal proof' isn't 'scientific proof'. To expect others to embrace ones personal opinion based on the rather dubious evidence available simply isn't going to suffice for most people. This is reality. Until we have some kind of definitive evidence (the elusive exhibit A) I can't see this changing.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#875    Spankster

Spankster

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined:05 Aug 2009

Posted 10 August 2009 - 11:15 AM

View PostLilly, on Aug 10 2009, 11:23 AM, said:

Here's my take on all this:

Not all evidence is of equal value and merit. Conjecture, stories, personal experiences, while all part of human reasoning, can't take the place of solid direct evidence. If someone has personally 'seen enough' to convince them that ET is behind the UFO phenomena that's certainly an acceptable personal choice. However, 'personal proof' isn't 'scientific proof'. To expect others to embrace ones personal opinion based on the rather dubious evidence available simply isn't going to suffice for most people. This is reality. Until we have some kind of definitive evidence (the elusive exhibit A) I can't see this changing.

I'd agree with that Lilly.

The problem here is for some folk a torn piece of tin-foil, random untraceable article or a dodgy radar signal IS definitive proof. Like yourself, i'd need alot more. Some people also see corroboration as outright evidence. You know, TWO crazy rednecks seen lights that night. IT MUST BE REAL !!!

Its just not concrete...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:

After posting this i done some quick wiki searching and found an outstanding case with so much corroboration its difficult to cast it off as a hoax, swamp gas or weatherballoons.

Anyone got any further reading or better sourcing for this event ?

http://en.wikipedia....an_UFO_incident

Brief: 1976. Tehran, Iran: Iranian airforce scrambles two U.S built Phantom aircraft to track a UFO located visually by civilians. Both aircraft lose avionics, and later weapons capabilities whilst locking on with RADAR and later attempting to fire on the UFO.

a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
B) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

IF all of that information were to be correct. (I.E names, dates, radar info etc) Then this would have to be the most convincing single event confirming the UFO phenomena. However, it still wouldnt do anything to prove the origins of those UFO's. Strange high tech stuff floating around annoying Iran sounds a bit like a U.S hobby to me.

Edited by Spankster, 10 August 2009 - 11:27 AM.

It doesnt really matter what you think. What matter is WHY you think it.

If you agree that in teh absence of god you would commit murder, robbery and r@pe then you reveal yourself to be an immoral person. If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveilance, you have fatally undermined your claim that god is necessary for us to be good:- Dr. Richard Dawkins

#876    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 01:13 PM

View PostSpankster, on Aug 10 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

I'd agree with that Lilly.

The problem here is for some folk a torn piece of tin-foil, random untraceable article or a dodgy radar signal IS definitive proof. Like yourself, i'd need alot more. Some people also see corroboration as outright evidence. You know, TWO crazy rednecks seen lights that night. IT MUST BE REAL !!!

Its just not concrete...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:

After posting this i done some quick wiki searching and found an outstanding case with so much corroboration its difficult to cast it off as a hoax, swamp gas or weatherballoons.

Anyone got any further reading or better sourcing for this event ?

http://en.wikipedia....an_UFO_incident

Brief: 1976. Tehran, Iran: Iranian airforce scrambles two U.S built Phantom aircraft to track a UFO located visually by civilians. Both aircraft lose avionics, and later weapons capabilities whilst locking on with RADAR and later attempting to fire on the UFO.

a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
B) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

IF all of that information were to be correct. (I.E names, dates, radar info etc) Then this would have to be the most convincing single event confirming the UFO phenomena. However, it still wouldnt do anything to prove the origins of those UFO's. Strange high tech stuff floating around annoying Iran sounds a bit like a U.S hobby to me.
The problem with cases like Tehran, is that as soon as the word machine is mentioned, suddenly we have 'verified' and 'confirmed' 'proof' that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft.  And that assumption is typically defended with an argument along the lines of 'are you going to tell the world that these highly experienced pilots don't know what they're talking about?".  Which is the heart of the problem.  As far as many of us have been able to determine, there is no identification for flying saucers taught by civillian or military agencies.  Which does mean that those experienced pilots were in fact looking at something completely unknown to them, so we haven't even established that this was even physical technology that they encountered.  

Some links to the case -
http://www.nicap.org/tehrandir.htm (some links aren't working)

http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases.htm (you'll find the Tehran Case in the bottom of the list)

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#877    Spankster

Spankster

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined:05 Aug 2009

Posted 10 August 2009 - 01:32 PM

View PostEvangium, on Aug 10 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

The problem with cases like Tehran, is that as soon as the word machine is mentioned, suddenly we have 'verified' and 'confirmed' 'proof' that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft.  And that assumption is typically defended with an argument along the lines of 'are you going to tell the world that these highly experienced pilots don't know what they're talking about?".  Which is the heart of the problem.  As far as many of us have been able to determine, there is no identification for flying saucers taught by civillian or military agencies.  Which does mean that those experienced pilots were in fact looking at something completely unknown to them, so we haven't even established that this was even physical technology that they encountered.  

Some links to the case -
http://www.nicap.org/tehrandir.htm (some links aren't working)

http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases.htm (you'll find the Tehran Case in the bottom of the list)

Yup, agree with everything you said Evangium. We have no way of knowing what they encountered that day, neither do they.

However, the base point i was making is that cases like this are good evidence that SOMETHING sure is out there, dunno if its aliens, some sort of physical anomoly, earth based technology or what. But its difficult to say "I dont believe in UFO's". There are too many cases which dont rely solely on some crazy babbling hick, a bored lonely housewifes desperate attempts at some attention, or a dodgy photo of a kids frisbie.

Thanks for the links aswell, will get a look when i get home.

It doesnt really matter what you think. What matter is WHY you think it.

If you agree that in teh absence of god you would commit murder, robbery and r@pe then you reveal yourself to be an immoral person. If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveilance, you have fatally undermined your claim that god is necessary for us to be good:- Dr. Richard Dawkins

#878    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 01:56 PM

View PostSpankster, on Aug 10 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

Yup, agree with everything you said Evangium. We have no way of knowing what they encountered that day, neither do they.

However, the base point i was making is that cases like this are good evidence that SOMETHING sure is out there, dunno if its aliens, some sort of physical anomoly, earth based technology or what. But its difficult to say "I dont believe in UFO's". There are too many cases which dont rely solely on some crazy babbling hick, a bored lonely housewifes desperate attempts at some attention, or a dodgy photo of a kids frisbie.

Thanks for the links aswell, will get a look when i get home.
You're welcome Spanky.

Funny thing about that whole "there's no such thing as UFOs" schtick, was that it probably was the opinion held by many in the 1940s - 1960s.  Since then, I'd say that particular view has become somewhat of a rarity, with most people acknowledging the possibility that there is something to them.  Unfortunately, the 'saucers have landed' types have a tendency to present their arguments as if the audience consists of believers and non-believers, only.  They really have trouble when somebody goes off the script ;)

Edited by Evangium, 10 August 2009 - 02:02 PM.

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#879    Spankster

Spankster

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Joined:05 Aug 2009

Posted 10 August 2009 - 02:24 PM

Yeah, i hear ya.

People sorta shoot themselves in the foot by looking at the situation with their mind already made up. The truth is none of us know the facts. I try to look at every situation with as open a mind as possible.

Just dont ask me about organised religion LOL, thats one area i have my set opinions.

It doesnt really matter what you think. What matter is WHY you think it.

If you agree that in teh absence of god you would commit murder, robbery and r@pe then you reveal yourself to be an immoral person. If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveilance, you have fatally undermined your claim that god is necessary for us to be good:- Dr. Richard Dawkins

#880    Wookietim

Wookietim

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007

Posted 10 August 2009 - 02:38 PM

View PostEvangium, on Aug 10 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

You're welcome Spanky.

Funny thing about that whole "there's no such thing as UFOs" schtick, was that it probably was the opinion held by many in the 1940s - 1960s.  Since then, I'd say that particular view has become somewhat of a rarity, with most people acknowledging the possibility that there is something to them.  Unfortunately, the 'saucers have landed' types have a tendency to present their arguments as if the audience consists of believers and non-believers, only.  They really have trouble when somebody goes off the script ;)

Actually, if you look at the actual history of this phenomenon, people in the 1940s - 60s were actually more accepting of the idea of UFO's than people in the 70s through the 90's.... I always found that kind of fascinating.


#881    Ra_Sun-God

Ra_Sun-God

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,129 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 03:25 PM

View Postbadeskov, on Aug 9 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

Not really, Ra.



Eh, no they didn't. That is a very imaginative story, but that is also all that it is - a story.

Cheers,
Badeskov
Oh yes Badeskov  :D

Oh yes they did.....


#882    Ra_Sun-God

Ra_Sun-God

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,129 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 03:30 PM

You skeptics says that man have never been on the moon without backing up any evidence to back up your "Never was on the moon"-claim.

http://www.washingto...-word-of-folly/

Skeptic spreads word of NASA 'folly'
Films, Web stoke theory that mission was a fraud
By Valerie Richardson (Contact) | Monday, July 20, 2009

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Avg. Rating: 0
ArticleComments (7)Print[-][+] Font Size E-Mail AlertsTell a FriendGot a Question?You ReportClick-2-ListenYahoo! BuzzBart Sibrel knows what it's like to be reviled for his beliefs. He's been ridiculed, he's lost friendships, he's even been punched in the face by a famous astronaut for stating -- often and emphatically -- that man never walked on the moon.

That said, Mr. Sibrel is excited about what is widely regarded as the 40th anniversary of the first lunar landing.

"This anniversary is a good opportunity to get the word out," Mr. Sibrel said. "It's also a good way to remind NASA and the astronauts of their folly."

An independent filmmaker based in Nashville, Tenn., Mr. Sibrel may be the world's best-known skeptic of moon landings. He's made seven films aimed at exposing the Apollo moon missions as frauds concocted by NASA and the Nixon White House to gain the high ground on the Soviets at the height of the space race.

"The moon landings were a Cold War deception," Mr. Sibrel said. "They couldn't protect the astronauts from lethal space radiation, so they lied to the public, they lied to schoolchildren, they lied to scientists."


Come on! Do you skeptics really think that President John F. Kennedy challenged his own nation and the Soviet Union just for fun????? I find it laughable that that kind of people really does exist who says that man never was on the moon.
And there was actually pollution on the air over Russia were the Russians tested their Moon rockets, some of the local Russians got affected by the pollution and some babies were born deformed, so the moon program was real enough!

The Apollo 11 mission also confirm that the moon program was real as they also filmed a UFO in space on their way to the moon. So yes, the ET's did also follow the Apollo 11 Mission!



http://www.metacafe...._out_there_cnn/

And guess what Dear skeptics, UFO "reports" on Youtube is serious enough. Otherwise such things as for example a F-15 fighter during an "Air Show" is on Youtube does that mean that the F-15's does not exist, huh?  :huh:

Edited by Ra_Sun-God, 10 August 2009 - 03:47 PM.


#883    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,654 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006

Posted 10 August 2009 - 03:48 PM

View PostRa_Sun-God, on Aug 10 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

Oh yes Badeskov  :D

Oh yes they did.....

To the best of my knowledge, no. But since you seem to be in the know, maybe you can point me to the science report/article/description behind this revolutionary discovery so I can assess it for myself?

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: I don't want another link based on hearsay and unsubstantiated claims like the research of this Anthony Bragalia trying to peddle a book). I want real substantiated data.

Edited by badeskov, 10 August 2009 - 03:49 PM.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#884    Ra_Sun-God

Ra_Sun-God

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,129 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 03:49 PM

http://www.abovetops...thread59950/pg1

RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region

The Air Force later admitted the weather balloon cover up story (so laughable cover up story), beside a weather balloon cannot create such powerful crash sites on the ground. And then they tried with the 11 crash sites cover up story too, tsk tsk tsk.......

Edited by Ra_Sun-God, 10 August 2009 - 03:53 PM.


#885    Ra_Sun-God

Ra_Sun-God

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,129 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2008

Posted 10 August 2009 - 03:57 PM

View Postbadeskov, on Aug 10 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

To the best of my knowledge, no. But since you seem to be in the know, maybe you can point me to the science report/article/description behind this revolutionary discovery so I can assess it for myself?

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: I don't want another link based on hearsay and unsubstantiated claims like the research of this Anthony Bragalia trying to peddle a book). I want real substantiated data.
Seems Bragalia is ordered to write what the scientists concluded, so you may be wrong:

http://www.abovetops...hread466795/pg1

http://www.theufochr...nfirmed-as.html