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.


* * * - - 11 votes

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6153 replies to this topic

#2356    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:09 AM

View PostPaxus, on 27 April 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

mcrom, depending on the area you're flying (and altitude), basically if you're not in ctz, you aren't required to have transponder on.

cheers... but you did not answer my question that whether those locations were in a ctz or not?


#2357    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:10 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 27 April 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

The primary problem is that with only visual data (eyewitness, radar, etc.) intelligence can't be definitively determined. With atmospheric anomalies like plasma and it's inherent repulsion/attraction behavior it can mimic intelligence by 'following' or 'fleeing'. With something like that known to exist it can be difficult to quantify intelligence in an object/light that primarily expresses itself through its movement.

Hey S2F,

I agree with that. Well said, nicely put.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2358    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:14 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 27 April 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

My comments regarding what?

my question re the transponders as being off and not being picked up by multiple radar systems...  :ph34r:

View Postlost_shaman, on 27 April 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

As far as I'm concerned you haven't put forward a non-cryptic question that anyone can understand much-less answer honestly.

if you had not understood them... then why the responses  :unsure2:


#2359    Paxus

Paxus

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,689 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:15 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 27 April 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:

cheers... but you did not answer my question that whether those locations were in a ctz or not?
I have no idea although I suspect you could easily find out by googling the town/city or wherever it happened and control zones maybe +aviation or the closest airport and you will find a special map used for pilots which show the control 'steps' usually in circles from the airport outward.... it's like an upside down cake, the farther away from the AP the higher the control steps...
Even if you find out, it won't help this case because you don't know what altitude they were flying at.
Besides, if they were cocky enough to do formation flying at night/dusk over a polulated area with special bright lights on, I'm guessing they knew exactly what they were doing and were below controlled airspace!

P.S. Sorry, but LS is right, I wasn't sure what you were talking about either - I just took a stab ;)

Edited by Paxus, 27 April 2011 - 06:18 AM.


#2360    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:24 AM

View PostPaxus, on 27 April 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

I have no idea although I suspect you could easily find out by googling the town/city or wherever it happened and control zones maybe +aviation or the closest airport and you will find a special map used for pilots which show the control 'steps' usually in circles from the airport outward.... it's like an upside down cake, the farther away from the AP the higher the control steps...
Even if you find out, it won't help this case because you don't know what altitude they were flying at.
Besides, if they were cocky enough to do formation flying at night/dusk over a polulated area with special bright lights on, I'm guessing they knew exactly what they were doing and were below controlled airspace!

P.S. Sorry, but LS is right, I wasn't sure what you were talking about either - I just took a stab ;)

thanks for those details... will/are check/ing them out.... but that still does not answer my question about the targets not being picked up by said radars i.e. irrespective of the fact whether they had transponders or if they were switched off...  <_<


#2361    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:29 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 27 April 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:

my question re the transponders as being off and not being picked up by multiple radar systems...  :ph34r:


I answered that question, after that you started asking very vague questions and I asked you to be specific. Thus far you've failed to specify.


View Postmcrom901, on 27 April 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:


if you had not understood them... then why the responses  :unsure2:

I asked you to specify the question, what is holding you up?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2362    Paxus

Paxus

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,689 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:37 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 27 April 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

thanks for those details... will/are check/ing them out.... but that still does not answer my question about the targets not being picked up by said radars i.e. irrespective of the fact whether they had transponders or if they were switched off...  <_<
Who knows, perhaps the radar isn't set to sweep there (especially if not in controlled area), maybe the aircraft were too small, maybe they were a weird shape.... maybe they were remote controlled...
I dunno - If I knew, I would have replied.

FOR psyche101

Edited by Paxus, 27 April 2011 - 07:25 AM.


#2363    Xpeople

Xpeople

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2010

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:41 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 27 April 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

The primary problem is that with only visual data (eyewitness, radar, etc.) intelligence can't be definitively determined. With atmospheric anomalies like plasma and it's inherent repulsion/attraction behavior it can mimic intelligence by 'following' or 'fleeing'. With something like that known to exist it can be difficult to quantify intelligence in an object/light that primarily expresses itself through its movement.

How do you explained the UFO connection?


#2364    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:01 AM

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

Heya psyche101!

:st

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

First off - Thanks for talking the time to answer my posts in so much detail - I do realise it streatches your patience somewhat ;)
I didn't mean I didn't like the Phoenix Lights conclusions I just meant I don't like the skyeagle vs everyone back and forth arguments a-la Roswell...

Nah mate, you do not stretch my patience, just time does.

My mistake, but yet again we should be looking at the lowest common denominator. For some reason, this sort of nonsense is allowed to continue. One wonders if he pays extra for the privilege.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

Will do!

You will not be disappointed ;)

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

The simple answer would be, 'I don't know and have never claimed to know all the answers'.
More specific answers would include,
* Perhaps initial arrival occured a thousand years ago (or any other time we couldn't have detected their arrival
* Perhaps initial arrival was well stealthed.
* Perhaps initial arrival was detected. It's not as if ufos haven't ever been detected from space. (Sorry i can't link examples off the top of my head but even if I could it doesn't matter as there may even be cases that are simply not made public knowledge)
* Perhaps they evolved here.

We seem to be looking very hard to qualify another intelligence, would it not be  good idea to open up the parameters a little more to include good old earth?

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

To say that many are deluded or mistaken or lying simply ignores the many they aren't simply couldn't be. Is it at all possible you haven't read as many cases as I have? I somehow doubt it but we're not talking a handful here, we're talking about hundreds of sightings...
Your post about alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture simply doesn't fit some sightings.
When scientists who don't believe the ETH see a UFO that changes their view to that of unkown highly advanced craft, you can't put that sighting into the category of mistaken or dellueded! Of course I know they might still be lying but once again, this isn't happening just once or twice!

I think that puts said scientist into the pop culture bracket. Scientists are human just like anyone, and have interests and influences. My little sister is a practising scientist. I know she is often wrong about general matters as her focus is quite specific, but she can answer any question on cancer admirably.
I do believe personal preference is the only way one can arrive at the ETH, as there is nothing to base a comparison on other than imagination. However, just like the ETH on land, USO' I feel also much have a multitude of explanations, and perhaps more so when one consideres that bioluminescence is a part of life in the Ocean. Seeing a glowing object in the Ocean is a very regular occurrence.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

First of all, not everyone that has seen what they are sure is a craft (unkown craft) believes that ET are crashing all over Earth - that's just crazy.
I'll take your word for it that there's a large crowd who do believe they crash and that they are based in the ocean but i still don't see how this is a good reason to discount the possibility that something is hiding in our oceans.

Association by creation. What I am saying is that a large majority of zealots think both of these things can only mean ET. Obviously not all do. We do not know that any at all do. And the ETH crowd is IMHO so far off the mark that we can pretty much throw away the ETH where UFO's are concerned. I honestly do not think a fresh approach would be detrimental, nor time wasting. It is not like the ETH is going anywhere at any pace.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

I'm not picking and choosing the way you think I am.
I'm trying to whittle down the possibilities and just like a skeptic refuses to believe in the ETH, I refuse to rule out a possibility that has not be proven false.


That is only because you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that I would be lying if I said a 72 Meter tall purple elephant with 2 trunks ate my fruit trees last night. From this perspective, Earth visiting ET and said 72 meter tall purple elephant are in the same boat.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

I say, as I keep saying on this forum, you cannot ascribe our logic to something unkown!
Let's, for argument's sake say, that it is ET.... We can't possibly know why they do what they do!
Perhaps having their bases hidden is the only major concern?
Perhaps they want to be seen as part of a slow 'getting us used to them' startegy?
Also, don't forget I'm not ruling out that they aren't some secret military project.

Military project is the only one that fits the bill I reckon. I do believe that I logically questioned shallow water ET to an unanswerable point. Why can we not possibly fathom the outcomes? We only have a pool of one to go by, and whilst ET Might be very different, it does not mean that intelligence, or goals of preservation is universally completely different. Should a species attain intelligence via some similar evolution process, it should be at least comparable. I think it is too far to just go - well, just beyond us, do not even try to think about it. We have left out own solar system, I think that gives us the right to speculate intelligently. Surely an intelligent race uses some logic, or they would not be all that intelligent.
I cannot fathom the getting to know us ideal, if they do not have a idea after all this time they must be anything but intelligent! Some of the recollections in the link you offered (and most USO proponents hypothesis) go back for centuries.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

Yes and no. (Which is why I sit on the fence)
If you believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of witnesses aren't lying/mistaken/delluded then you have to believe there are unkown craft flying around. If there are unkown craft flying around then they could be secret man-made projects, time travelors, interdimensional or ET.
As I mentioned before, I'm as loathe to rule out  ET as a skeptic is to rule them in. (Which, btw, is not what I am doing, I am merely asking a series of 'what ifs'....)

I do not think people are deluded to have seen a UFO, or a USO for that matter, I think they are deluding themselves into believing what they see is ET. That is pop culture entirely, as we have nothing to base such speculations upon. I still see Bioluminescence as the main cause for USO's but touching on that briefly, and going by the link offered ( I relise you did not endorse it, but as an example), many of the reported USO's did not enter the water, but sucked water up, or ran a hose into a water body. I would not consider such a USO?

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

I'm just going by your quote (not looking at mine atm - sorry work constraints) but I think I know what you mean and I stick by my argument (keeping in mind, it's a hypothesis).
IF there is ET, then hiding on Earth isn't going to present much of a challenge to them.
I really don't see how you could possibly disagree with that.

I do think it would be quite a challenge, we are a diverse and inquisitive species, and I feel rather underestimated. I do not think that imagining some technology, or motives that we cannot think of is a satisfactory answer. And my main point is that these things burst out at beaches, and close to shorelines, as the maps at that link confirm. To hide, and then burst out in full view just makes no sense, and I do not think that there is an advanced answer that makes sense of this situation.
Again you are asking to prove a negative, but to be honest, I do not see the point as it could be have a billion answers, granted most of them very silly. But only personal preference determines the very silly from the plausible here, which could not be a worse way to come to a conclusion.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

I've never said that I don't like the 'Greek Gods' analogy. Actually, I think it's a very useful one! I am just as aware of people's propensity for making mistakes and the terrible nature of witness testimony (I know from my psychology studies why it is <mostly to do with how badly our memory works>).
Anyway, it's a great analogy to help weed out the people making mistakes.
If all that we ever had were vague sightings by unreliable witnesses I probably wouldn't even consider the ETH. The problem is we don't only have vague sightings by unreliable witnesses. We have sightings that last several minutes by scientists or otherwise very reliable witnesses that are often up close or lasting several minutes where the UFO displays properties of a machine.... This is why I can't write them off as 'mistaken identitiy'.

Sorry man, my mistake, when you said you did not want to hear it (Greek Gods), I though you opposed it.

But how can they not be mistaken identity? What has been used for comparison?


View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

Ah ok.
While I'm inclined to agree with you there - even those crazy conspiracy theories, however unlikely, can't be disproven. (Not saying I believe them - I have often said that I find it HIGHLY unlikely that out of hundreds of people who would have to be 'in on' such a secret, no one would ever blow the whistle)

Indeed, and one must take into account the influence this crackpot element has upon the subject.

View PostPaxus, on 25 April 2011 - 11:03 PM, said:

Very nice - and like I said above, this would be a great explination if it was someone who didn't know better that saw it and if they saw it from a distance, but I asked what if it hovered around for a while before leaving? (I should have added, it didn't look like a rocket but I thought you knew what I meant).
For you to show me a pick of a rocket launched from a sub makes me think you haven't read the kind of sightings I'm talking about.... Have you read EVERY sighting at www.waterufo.net? <--- sorry if that's the wrong link, you know which sight i mean, can't use net right now (typing this as a .txt right now for posting later on)
The real question I'm asking is what would you think if it were you that had one of the more fantastic sightings that are a dime a dozen out there. YOU saw a definate craft (perhaps even with visible occupants), you saw it do things which known man-made craft can't  do etc. etc.
This is the UFO problem, not that some people are wrong or lying.
The UFO problem is that they ARE here and we need to figure out who/what they are. (Not if they exist)
[Well that's my opinion anywho ;)]


Again I look back at my post and I think the points of mistaken identity, our current knowledge of Plasma, and Bioluminescence common in Sea Creatures will answer many claims, granted not all, but we have more to learn. I do think it is just not a well looked at as the instances are less than land based sightings, and no wonder really. However, this to me again indicates natural phenomena. I do not see how ET can be visiting with the proposed regularity when this phenomena has all shapes and sizes in all parts of the world. Sightings are almost as diverse as the sky itself.
Alaso again with that site, not too many actually enter the water, but extract water, which if it was an ET craft, one would be suspecting is taking on board resources. Like the ETH, USO's are in a messy state, and I do not think they can be lumped together, but need far better categorisation.
Time is tight, forgive any typos please mate.
Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 27 April 2011 - 08:04 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#2365    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:20 AM

View PostPaxus, on 26 April 2011 - 10:07 PM, said:

I'd also like to mention something in-line with DONTEATUS' recent posts:
Anyone can come along and with much thought and analysis, planning and manipulation (keep in mind you have hundreds of variables to play with) and CONSTRUCT an explination for pretty much any sighting.


Is this not an accurate definition of the current ETH?





What I would take into consideration is that enthusiasts with a long record of trying to explain such cases are not likely to have a brief encounter with something they do not recognise and claim, It HAS to be ET.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#2366    quillius

quillius

    451168443513224154

  • Member
  • 4,743 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:21 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 27 April 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

Hey quillius,

No firm conclusions. This '77 Flap is one of the stranger Flaps IMO, though. I was first really interested in this Flap because there seemed to be quite of number of small UFO's reported (my own close encounter was a small UFO). Eventually while looking at this Flap I was led in the direction of Hessdalen... So if you are going to force me to speculate, UAP (Plasma) probably played a large role in the Flap. The Flap itself, while having high strangeness, doesn't convince me that E.T. was involved despite the few reports that state this was the case.

Morning (at least where I am) LS,

thanks for response. I really havent looked into it at all but it does sound intruiging.

Thanks for the speculation, I wont let it create any sort of Bias when I look at the case.

:tu:


#2367    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:22 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 April 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close. :no:


As Lost Shaman has repeatedly pointed out, what we are seeing, is what you are seeing, and that is taken with a camera, not the naked eye, and has different proporties. So what you have seen is irrelevant.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#2368    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:25 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 April 2011 - 02:04 AM, said:

How amusing when even those in the valley, saw the lights as well, which made their figures moot by that very fact., and I have been to Phoenix many times before to know their figures didn't add up and in fact, I will passing through Phoenix this weekend.

What are they saying?




I do not know, I have no sound at this terminal. Regardless, you have changed tack, you presented that nutter Fyfe Symington as evidence, and now are covering your tracks. It would be just great if you read the posts you responded to.

Is that how you validate ET? Put a mask on someone and say - That was them! Actually, I would not be totally shocked.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#2369    quillius

quillius

    451168443513224154

  • Member
  • 4,743 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:25 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 April 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

Fair summary for the most part, in my opinion.

If you are talking about the little league game, I'd say that they likely were embellishing their observation just a bit.  I wasn't there with them at the time, of course, so I could be totally wrong, but that is the feeling I'm getting for almost all of the witnesses.

Speaking of the witnesses...  when people talk about the significance of this they mention the thousands of witnesses.  I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those thousands were for the later sighting and that there were really only a handful of people (respectively) who saw the earlier sightings.  Most who saw the earlier sightings, unless I'm mistaken, didn't report anything out of the ordinary until after the mysterious flare drop which had the whole greater Phoenix area buzzing.

Thanks for all your points Boon. Your summary of the witnesses sounds plausible, obviously I dont know whether that is the case or not....but its at least a possible scenario for the events.


#2370    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:30 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 April 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Once again, those lights were not flares. The Air Force made up that flare story and amazingly, there were those who jumped on its bandwagon, and how long did it take the Air Force to come up with that cover story anyway? That was another hint those lights were not what the Air Force had claimed.. If the Air Force had said they were lighted weather balloons, then the skeptics would have jumped on that bandwagon as well because that is typical whenever the Air Force misleads the public on UFOs.

That is the way it worked with the Roswell incident and  other UFO incidents as well.  What it is, there are those who don't learn their lessons when dealing with the Air Force, which has been known to mislead the public on UFO for decades.

Sooner or later, they will have to figure  out eventually, that they have been taken for a ride by the Air Force on many occasions in regards to UFOs.


Can you show your math please to prove the angles? Otherwise it might be best to just put it away until you have something of substance to offer. Appeals to authority are useless man, have you not twigged to that as yet?
Hopefully sooner or later you will figure it out eventually.

From what Lost Shaman, Boon, Perc (only one of them this time) and Cz have shown, you are indeed incorrect. Math does not lie. I always take comfort in that. If you can present a counter argument, please do so, but travelling through Phoenix next week is about as helpful as saying Emperor Penguins live in the Antarctic. So you may as well keep such useless information to yourself.

And trying to sneak Roswell in again huh! Shameless indeed! Remember your promise to Pax now!!

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.