Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of
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This topic has been archived.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

### #2476 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:44 PM

skyeagle409, on 28 April 2011 - 10:28 PM, said:

It is just a matter of sitting on a certain spot and looking at a tall building from 50 miles away without a mountain in between, which means, the dots in your case have not been connected.

Now, using that photo I supplied of the Chicago skyline, compute the angle above that horizon for a building that is 1400 feet tall from the point where the photo was taken and let's compart your figures with what is depicted in the photo, and then, we can work from there.

We've already done all this in previous calculations. Did you skip through those?

At any rate, at 50 miles 1,652.3ft will be below the Horizon from your view point. The Willis Tower is ~1452 ft tall but Chicago has 580 ft elevation so the Willis Tower is ~2032 ft ASL, then you are seeing about 379.6 ft of the Top of the Willis Tower in that Photo ( a bit more considering the elevation of the Camera).

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

### #2477 psyche101

psyche101

The Customer.

• Member
• 38,300 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:45 PM

mcrom901, on 28 April 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

thanks...

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. - Dr Who

### #2478 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 32,610 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:47 PM

psyche101, on 28 April 2011 - 05:02 AM, said:

Only a person with no optical experience whatsoever would make such a flawed rebuttal.

I think you need to review this because I think you missed it the last time around.

And in a big loud vice, come on, I will join in:

THANKS BOON.
:38 Narrator
"Dropping flares, or anything for that matter, over populated areas or indian reservations is a serious FAA violation and prohibited due to possible injury to civilians, damage to property, and ground fires."

The BGR isn't populated. No FAA violation. Nuff said.

On the contrary, there were no flares dropped at that time, which explains why the Air Force was unable to provide any operational logs for any flare drops at that time, which raised some eyebrowns. Nuh, said.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 April 2011 - 10:47 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

### #2479 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 32,610 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:50 PM

lost_shaman, on 28 April 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

We've already done all this in previous calculations. Did you skip through those?

At any rate, at 50 miles 1,652.3ft will be below the Horizon from your view point. The Willis Tower is ~1452 ft tall but Chicago has 580 ft elevation so the Willis Tower is ~2032 ft ASL, then you are seeing about 379.6 ft of the Top of the Willis Tower in that Photo ( a bit more considering the elevation of the Camera).

Taking that into consideration, place a 2000-foot mountain between the camera and the skyline.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

### #2480 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:57 PM

skyeagle409, on 28 April 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

Taking that into consideration, place a 2000-foot mountain between the camera and the skyline.

Place a Mountain what distance from the Camera?

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

### #2481 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

• Closed
• 13,536 posts
• Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 28 April 2011 - 11:18 PM

skyeagle409, on 28 April 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

You had better try to get those flares above 18,000 feet then because those light were definitely not over the BGR, and that further explains why the folks of Phoenix have never seen flares over the BGR before despite the number of years in operation and numerouls flare drops and those lights were not flares anyway and there are a number of indications they were not flares.
Show me the math behind your 18,000 foot figure.

### #2482 DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 19,031 posts
• Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 28 April 2011 - 11:54 PM

Leave it to mcrom to Help out with the Grey matter Loss in here ! Love that kind of thinking MC SLAMMER !

This is a Work in Progress!

### #2483 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:12 AM

lost_shaman, on 28 April 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

Place a Mountain what distance from the Camera?

Ok Sky, if you are not going to answer then the only clue to distance from the Camera to the Mountain you gave was "between" so I'll assume 25 miles.

At 25 miles (assuming the Camera is near sea level), 1,586.9 ft of this Mountain extends above the Horizon. That equates to 0.6877 degrees or 3,168.8 ft @ 50 miles. Adding this figure to the 1,652.3 ft calculated in a previous post above we get 4,821.1 ft as a minimum height for an object to be seen 50 miles away and above your hypothetical Mountain 2,000 ft tall above sea level 25 miles away in the Chicago Photo you posted.

Edited by lost_shaman, 29 April 2011 - 02:21 AM.

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

### #2484 psyche101

psyche101

The Customer.

• Member
• 38,300 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

No, and you should know better, I can do the same thing with Earthly explinations and often do (right here in UM) - besides my first part of the bit you're refering to was simply, 'I don't know and have never claimed to know all the answers'. Of course, when asked for possible ET explinations, I will rattle some off. This doesn't mean I'm single minded, in fact it seems to be me trying to remind others here to stop making an assumption first and building an explination around the assumption...

I was not pointing specifically at you mate, hence the "we".

But no, I do not think you can do the same to validate possible explanations. The earthly processes are documented to exist, ET is not and relies on imagination completely.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

This is just an absolutely ineffective explination for the close-up, metallic (with features) objects which good(credible) witnesses are seeing! Read every case in the waterufo site and you'll see what I mean - your explinations don't fit.
With so many clear sightings which would fit my (and quillious') critereon (see my signature) the question shouldn't even be, 'was there something unusual there or not' but 'what IS that unusual thing?'.

Are we at the same site?

he saw a saucer-shaped silver disk fly by him under water with lights on it,

sighted a huge disc beneath the surface of the water. The object, glowing with a soft, greenish light, paced the ship

Ira Pete, the owner of the Ruby E, said "I hooked into something and pulled the stern off." He said he had no idea what the "something" was.

The crew said the object was either a submarine or a huge whale.

The helmsman of the trawler Silverö  told the press that a light appeared just before the collision and then disappeared. It was visible for about ten minutes.

Then he looked ahead and saw a greenish light inside the water. However, this mysterious object disappeared so soon.

he told me that he and his fellow crewmen saw strange shapes of lights from under the sea.

one can see a dark object moving under the water. The object moves at a high speed to the left. But it is impossible to claim that this was a submarine and the matter remains unclear.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is but I think we're pretty much in agreement here.
As long as you don't discount X because you don't believe in Y and some people say X always happens with Y

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

That's true but ultimately irrelevant. If you're going to investigate something, if you want to do it properly, you shouldn't rule out possibilities that haven't been disproven.

I still do not fathom how ET is a possibility.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some funky military USOs.
As to the other stuff (above), I won't go there, other than just for fun, because we simply don't know and I think it's a mistake to make assumptions...

Or private Enterprise, when one looks at Branson's accomplishments, who knows what private companies are testing.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Doesn't matter what you call it - UFO associated with water... Sucking it up (which has been seen many times) is clearly a function ascribed to a machine, not plasma or weather or algae...
You talk about pop-culture as a reason for the ETH but seem to discount all those witnesses who's FIRST assumptions are always Earthly until several things happen that don't fit the bill! Haven't you read all the accounts where a witness says something like, "I thought it was a helicopter untill....", or "I thought I was looking at a reflection of the moon on the water until....." or a combination, as a normal intelligent person is trying to work out what they are seeing.
You make it sound like everyone who's speculated ET is some silly impressionable twit, when clearly hundreds of them aren't!
You also keep mentioning things like weather, algae, plasma etc but I'm not talking about those kind of sightings! I'm talking about the ones that fit my criterion and they couldn't possibly be those things. They are craft and then the question clearly isn't about perseption or pop culture or meteorlogical phenomenon but 'WHAT ARE THESE WEIRD MACHINES'?

I think it does matter, how is a UFO that flies over a river, or lands on a River Bank a USO? Does USO not stand for Unidentified SUBMERGED Object? I find muddling the distinction very confusing to be honest. Environment will also have a huge impact on the possibility of type of phenomena, duration, and appearance.
Yes, I do think that most people that look at a thing and say ET are indeed ready to jump at a conclusion without bothering themselves with any level of investigation. I honestly feel that 99% of ET sightings are knee jerk reactions.
Ones I have seen where a person describes a water hose going into a machine I might point at Hydrogen prototypes. We have been messing with Hydrogen batteries since the '30's. Probably longer.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Don't feel underestimated, it's not our lack, but their technological advancements that I would blame for our not being able to detect them. I really don't see why it's so hard for you to accept that any being that can get around the FTL problem would have technology that would far surpass ours and hence wouldn't have ANY trouble hiding from us....
Again, I say, I don't know why they are sighted to burst out at beaches, and close to shorelines. I just don't think 'odd behaviour' is a good reason to discount the ET possibility....
As to billions of possibilities - I disagree - to consider ET amongst military secrets, meteorlogical, interdimensional, time travelors etc isn't such a long shot because of the vast amount of sightings etc... Not to forget people like Gilfaer who claim actual contact. It's because of these stories that (until proven false) I have to keep an open mind.

Yes, you have me called there, I do not see how any being can get around FTL, I think that is a pipe dream. Matter remains at a constant in the Universe. E=MC2 gains support as time rolls on. I do not think imagining the impossible is fruitful. To me, one might as well look forward to basking on the surface of the sun naked. Not to be rude but do you have a good understanding of Einsteins theories?

I do not call the breaching at beaches "odd behaviour" I would label it as illogical, which I also feel defies the ideal of an intelligent species.
Inter-dimensional as described by Jacques Vallee is an ideal I do not know enough about to comment on but I do find his theories encouraging and beyond the square. Be he right or wrong, I think this is the sort of thinking that will move an understanding closer.
I know little of Gilafer, in fact had I not visited the Abductee thread out of boredom yesterday I would not know who you are talking about. Again I do not know enough about the character to comment but I am extremely dubious on abduction tales.
Peopl who do give me hope that we may have contact one day are the likes of Stephen Hawking, and their (what I find) More rational approach to a logical sequence of events that one might expect from an intelligent species, and non intelligent species. I bought his latest series Into The Universe last night. Looking forward to viewing that.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

No need to apologise!!!
I was probably responding to cases where what is being reported is so obviously a machine, that I didn't want to hear the perception argument again... I'd much rather hear explinations that actually fit, like your rocket (from sub) example, or s secret military project...
Some can, and as you know have been proven to be mistaken identity, but as I've said before, I'm only really interested in cases that fit my criterion.

I think then it would be best to single them out, like I said, I find the ideal of any UFO in the vicinity of water being called a USO rather confusing. I get the impression that the site makes a distinction where there is none.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Agreed but please remember it cuts both ways - the crackpots seem to have made you less open-minded than you could be, which is a shame and why I hate crackpots and hoaxers. Look at the amazing amount of energy some of the guys here have put into showing an earthly explination for certain incidents (example the flares arguement going on atm in the 'Best Evidence' thread).... Now imagine that ammount of energy and attention to detail etc going into objective investigation. (I'm not saying it doesn't, just saying, we should never allow crackpottery to influence HOW we investigate)

I think that the papers by the many aspects of science (physics, meteorology, astronomy etc.) that do broach the subject, and many do, do indeed offer far better attention to the phenomena than the crackpots that label themselves UFOlogists.
Actually, Sky is the one that made me less open to the ideal of ET. From years of debate, I find best evidence to be very much wanting. The classic cases are not at all what they are cracked up to be, and they fall apart under scrutiny. If this is the best we have, then I conclude we do not have anything.

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Well, just go to waterufo.net and pick the ones that fit my criterion - you will see they cannot be Plasma or Bioluminescence...
I don't know why you keep bringing these up because it's the ones we can't explain that interest us - not the ones we can.
Dude, hundreds of them enter the water (not just extract)! I'm pretty sure now that you haven't read as many as I have.
Do check it out, there are some incredible incidents!

I guess we can put that down to USO/UFO confusion. That site calls any UFO that flies over a glass of water a USO.

Are we talking of the same site? I found many at the waterufo site to be called submarines, some were even explained, not sure why there were listed, some underwater, as per above examples, and some just go near water.
Some that I did find an unusual instance I have to say were mirrored at the Hessdalen project.

Could you please point at the section where you see these more intriguing instances, and perhaps post one or two samples?

Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WRITE ALL THIS!!!

Thanks for taking the time to reply mate The pleasure is shared.

Cheers.

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. - Dr Who

### #2485 psyche101

psyche101

The Customer.

• Member
• 38,300 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:55 AM

lost_shaman, on 28 April 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

This is a discussion Forum. This is the nature of Discussion Forums, it not only works this way here but on all other discussion Forums as well. There is also a Search function that you can use in the upper right hand corner under your Profile box.

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. - Dr Who

### #2486 DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 19,031 posts
• Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 29 April 2011 - 03:06 AM

Some Key Words that are used a lot in here !
1.I dont See How !
2.I dont Believe !
3.THeres no way  !
4.No proof!
5.Hard to Accept.
6.Dosnt .
7.Cant !
8.Impossible.

Looks Like thats a train of thought that needs to be on another Track than Best evidence for ET visitation.
It would be nice to See a Positive mind set once and awhile !

This is a Work in Progress!

### #2487 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 29 April 2011 - 03:13 AM

DONTEATUS, on 29 April 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:

Some Key Words that are used a lot in here !
1.I dont See How !
2.I dont Believe !
3.THeres no way  !
4.No proof!
5.Hard to Accept.
6.Dosnt .
7.Cant !
8.Impossible.

Looks Like thats a train of thought that needs to be on another Track than Best evidence for ET visitation.
It would be nice to See a Positive mind set once and awhile !

Hey D, that's really not fair to all the 'believers'... Sometimes they do accept the evidence.

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

### #2488 DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 19,031 posts
• Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 29 April 2011 - 03:25 AM

lost_shaman, on 29 April 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

Hey D, that's really not fair to all the 'believers'... Sometimes they do accept the evidence.
Ok I see what you mean!
But Im still all messed up from mcrom`s pick,of Pic`s,Of all that Biology !
Now Im side tracked Way off the subject?

Im afterall one of the Best Believers ever ! I seenit !

#### Attached Thumbnails

This is a Work in Progress!

### #2489 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 29 April 2011 - 03:47 AM

DONTEATUS, on 29 April 2011 - 03:25 AM, said:

Im afterall one of the Best Believers ever ! I seenit !

Four words D, "I want to believe!"

Ok enough about that, I think we are on an even Keel now.

Edited by lost_shaman, 29 April 2011 - 03:48 AM.

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

### #2490 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 32,610 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:16 AM

lost_shaman, on 28 April 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

We've already done all this in previous calculations. Did you skip through those?

At any rate, at 50 miles 1,652.3ft will be below the Horizon from your view point. The Willis Tower is ~1452 ft tall but Chicago has 580 ft elevation so the Willis Tower is ~2032 ft ASL, then you are seeing about 379.6 ft of the Top of the Willis Tower in that Photo ( a bit more considering the elevation of the Camera).

To sum it all up, there was no way those lights were over the BGR from 50+ miles at the altitude the lights were taped from the Phoenix area. I had already done a side-by-side comparison some time ago between the Chicago skyline photoi and the 'Phoenix Lights," and matching the horizons together to see major differences, but, decided to withhold that information to see where I was being taken by the skeptcs That is why I have been telling you folks that your numbers were not matching up and why I posted the photo, and, what I was observing behind my own residence at tall and distant objects and the observations were consistent with the Chicago skyline photo. Another reason why I explained the need to do a side profile depiction in regards to the the City of Phoenix and the BGR. I posted the elevations of each location for a particularly good reason.

To further add, the Air Force had made up the story of the flares, which was evident by the fact it took them weeks before they even  responded with a flare explanation and demontration, and that, after initially denying any involvement. You see, that is the way the Air Force works, and I have seen it time after time after time,not just on UFOs, but on other issues as well, once of which involved me on a mission in regards to the Korean Airline incident involving Flt 007.. The Air Force is a master at deception and the Roswell incident and the 1952 Washtington D.C. incidents are prime examples of what I am talking about in regards to the "Phoenix Lights" deception.

I have been sitting here looking out over the bay at a few tall buildings between 10-12 miles away and I can hardly make them out above the horizon, and one of those buildings is 417 feet high, so I had already known for some time that the further an object is from the viewpoint the lower on the horizon a distant object is going to be.

It has already been concluded that the "Phoenix Lights" were not flares, which was evident  by the fact that the majority of people who have lived in the Phoenix area for many years, have never seen military flares before and look where the BGR is located in regards to the City of Phoenix. That was one of a few major clues that the Air Force was deceiving the public on flares that were not there, and given the fact that  people who saw the lights firsthand, have said the objects were not flares, and  some of them have  seen flares before to know the difference and were in the military.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 April 2011 - 04:43 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX