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This topic has been archived.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

#2641    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,126 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:25 AM

Heavens, did this go onto the second page?  :o Quick, someone, argue about FLARES!

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#2642    quillius

quillius

    52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

  • Member
  • 5,590 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:54 AM

View Post747400, on 06 May 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Heavens, did this go onto the second page?  :o Quick, someone, argue about FLARES!

im trying to :)


#2643    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,685 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:57 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 May 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

1. number of A10's involved in disposing of unused flares.

View Postskyeagle409, on 30 April 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

That story was made up by the AIr Force. Had the A-10s truly been dumping flares at hight atltitude, the Air Force would have acknowledge to the reporters when asked for an explanation. As it was, the Air Force denied any involvment and refused to get involved. Many weeks later, the Air Force came back and said, "oh yes, one of our A-10s was responsible for dropping flares from 6000 feet, which were ignited at 3000 feet.

When the Air Force saw that its expanation was flawed becauase there was no way that flares at 3000 feet could bee seen in Phoenix from behnid the mountain, the Air Force came back with yet another explanation that some A-10s were dropping flares from a HIGHER ALTITUDE because they can't land with flares aboard, however, that creates a bit of a problem when there were no A-10s airborned at 10 PM. Operatiing around the 10 PM time frame would have been cutting in on the Tucson folks quiet hours.

The Air Force was responsible,  so let's do a recap.

The Air Force initially denied nvolvment, and then later the Air Force had said, that  the "Phoenix Lights" were flares, which were dropped from 6000 feet and  ignited at 3000 feet, and then, the Air Force came back and said, that A-10s dropped flares from a high altitude.

Those lights were NOT indicative of flare drops by multiple aircraft at night. You know, there is a very good reason why pilots wear sunglasses during the day, it helps their night vision.

Oh yes there was. No aircraft at Luke AFB were involved, so all the Luke PR folks  Luke had to do was to make a simple phone call to DMAFB, and I am very sure they did just that. and yet many weeks later, the Air Force came back with flare drops at 6000 feet, not 15000 feet. Then, its explanation changed again when they determined their altitude figure was too low, so the Air Force had to make some adjustments to its altitude explanation and there you are, a full-blown Air Force cover-up on the level of the Roswell incident.

BTW, I happen to pass through Phoenix last night and there was no way that those lights were over the BGR.



View Postquillius, on 06 May 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

2. time of flares one and height, then the same for each other flare

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 May 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

You might want to rework your figures to reflect a 50-mile distance from the camera because, I have seen aircraft moving at velocties faster than an A-10 from 40 miles distance.at a ;slower movement rate than what you see in the video, and another reason why I have said those lights were nowhere near the BGR, and now, someone has been talking 77 miles away, which makes it more compelling that those lights were nowhere near the BGR. Also:

That is one of the reasons why I told you to use the side profile depiction. On another note, if you look at that Chicago photo, you will notice the word: copywrite, however, I see no problem with anyone doing their own comparison on their own computers as I have. Just make the proper alignments between the two photos.



View Postquillius, on 06 May 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

3. what plane dropped which flares...i.e. plane a dropped flare 1 then plane b dropped the next 8? or whatever the case may be.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 May 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

On the contrary, it is right on the money. I did a side-by-side photo comparison with both photos lining up the horizons together proving that there was no way those lights were over the BGR, and  I say lights because I already know those lights were not flares. Next, I matched the observations across the bay from my own home to verify the the observation in the Chicago photo, and further verification can be found in a side profile depiction I have been speaking of, and I didn't even add the curvature of the Earth in that side profile either.


Since most people of Phoenix, who have lived there for many years, and have never seen flares over the BGR before, Maccabee's figures should be re-examined in detail to see where he went wrong, especially since the BGR has been in operation for decades and where thousands of sorties and many flare drops are conducted each year.

That is yet, another major clue right there.



View Postquillius, on 06 May 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

4. approximate distance to base from flare ignition and estimate on time taken to return and land 8 A-10's if this figure is correct.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 May 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

And,


Why is it that those who have never seen flares before, are the very folks who are telling those who have, that the 'Phoenix Lights' were flares?

Simply amazing, and it shows a trend where some skeptics will never accept any evidence regards, anymore than those of the Flat Earth Society, that the Earth is round.

Posted Image


#2644    quillius

quillius

    52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

  • Member
  • 5,590 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:04 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 06 May 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:


that seems like fight talk mcrom  :P


#2645    someoldguy

someoldguy

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2008

Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:43 PM

Quote

If either of you or anyone else for that matter has any of these answers I would be grateful if you could post them.

I sure don't.  :D  
I can see where the flares' rate of descent would be the same because their construction is the same and all of them would therefore have (approximately) the same terminal velocity because they were attached to parachutes.

Edited by someoldguy, 06 May 2011 - 12:43 PM.

---CGM



Nothing creates controversy quite like the truth.

#2646    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:35 PM

And the Little stealthy Chopper flew deep into the valley early in the morning Looking for its GPS feed target,
we all prayed that the mission would be a total success.
As the event unfolded the target was found although one of our secret toys was to hit hard the ground.
The Brave men all focused on the task,Bin Laden would be brought to his end With Expert Aim.
No claims of Hoorah ! or Boasting of Fame,This is what Seal team 6 do is Compleat there Aim.
The world is better now and onto the next Mission,This is why they Got the Premission.
My Hats off to our Commander and Chief ! I`ll vote again For Obama To Keep us Safe.
This is maybe why ET stays away They watch CNN each and Every Day !
We have a Long way to Go ! PEACE is a earned Way of Life this we all Know. :innocent:

This is a Work in Progress!

#2647    Paxus

Paxus

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,743 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010

Posted 06 May 2011 - 06:29 PM

WOAH - I miss a few days... 177 pages!!!!
I skipped from 167 to here - so if I missed anything directed at me, sorry - feel free to let me know!

View Postquillius, on 28 April 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

I too would love to hear some of the skeptics opinions on this one....even better I would be interested in seeing them pose some questions to Gilfaer.

Pax, do you know where he got the name from? playing with the letters I can obviously extract 'liar' but cant do much with the other letters left G,F and E... :P
Yeh, he explained it to me once, I forget now though - Thinks it's made up from two different elvish words :)


View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

Are we at the same site?
I suppose so - it has hundreds of accounts...

View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

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.
That site describes exactly what it means by the terms used and maybe I'm using USO too much, I mean the site is called 'water' ufo - so let's not quibble about the naming.
The point is there are amazing sightings which should be answered and so far, cannot.
You're wrong about the jumping to conclusions, the knee jerk reactions etc.
I've read far too many accounts of people like yourself and scientists who have (as I already wrote above) witnessed an object and thought of all the normal explinations FIRST and FOREMOST.
Not sure what you mean by 'hydrogen prototypes'...
Are you talking about weird disc shaped flying machines?


View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

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?
*LOL*
My mind boggles that you are so sure.
Yes I understand Einstein's theories but I am not so closed minded as to assume there is no way AROUND it!
I have never said I believe we can break the laws of physics, I have only said that I'm open to the possibility that their may be a way around it (like wormhole theories or an artificial means with similar results).

View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

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.
Like I said - no point in speculating about why they do what they do....
I'm disappointed you like Hawking. After he said that we should be scared of aliens (if they came), I lost a lot of respect for him.
I've explained in other threads why I think that is the most ludicrous and illogical (hardly intelligent) suggestion.


View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

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.
Sorry, I don't think I'll ever be able to do that - same as with BE thread. I don't have the kind of memory to recall specific cases to be able to quote them when needed and I don't have the time to go and find, cut n paste them.
If you read all the cases at the water ufo site, you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about.

View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

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?


Sorry, I don't think I'll ever be able to do that - same as with BE thread. I don't have the kind of memory to recall specific cases to be able to quote them when needed and I don't have the time to go and find, cut n paste them.
If you read all the cases at the water ufo site, you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about.
<sighs> I will if you really really want me to - but seriously - you can pick one or two yourself - there's tonnes of them! :)

View Postpsyche101, on 29 April 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:


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

Cheers.
Ditto! Again!


#2648    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:18 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 May 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

Hey someoldguy, I quite like the idea of a summary because there is so much info and calculations over many pages.

Ideally I would like to know from LS or Boon (as they have done the best calculations) a summary of events to include the following:

1. number of A10's involved in disposing of unused flares.
2. time of flares one and height, then the same for each other flare
3. what plane dropped which flares...i.e. plane a dropped flare 1 then plane b dropped the next 8? or whatever the case may be.
4. approximate distance to base from flare ignition and estimate on time taken to return and land 8 A-10's if this figure is correct.

If either of you or anyone else for that matter has any of these answers I would be grateful if you could post them.

Thanks in advance.
1.  I'm not sure, I haven't looked into this yet, but I think it may have been mentioned somewhere along the way in one of the many resources I've looked at.
2.  Do you mean time of day?  Or how long between the appearance of each flare?  And altitude of flares at point of appearance vs disappearance?  Working on confirming all of that in a more organized and clear way, but slow going.  If time of day... it was about 10 PM. ;)
3.  No idea.
4.  Have yet to look that up... give me a moment...  about 110 miles from the last flare dropped to Davis–Monthan AFB in Tucson.  Not sure how long it would take to fly that, but at the estimated airspeed of 200-300 MPH, not very long.  Less than a half hour most likely.  Maybe around 20 minutes, give or take.


#2649    arenee

arenee

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:22 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 06 May 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

1.  I'm not sure, I haven't looked into this yet, but I think it may have been mentioned somewhere along the way in one of the many resources I've looked at.
2.  Do you mean time of day?  Or how long between the appearance of each flare?  And altitude of flares at point of appearance vs disappearance?  Working on confirming all of that in a more organized and clear way, but slow going.  If time of day... it was about 10 PM. ;)
3.  No idea.
4.  Have yet to look that up... give me a moment...  about 110 miles from the last flare dropped to Davis–Monthan AFB in Tucson.  Not sure how long it would take to fly that, but at the estimated airspeed of 200-300 MPH, not very long.  Less than a half hour most likely.  Maybe around 20 minutes, give or take.
A flight from Phoenix to Tucson in a regular plane is about a half hour. I'm assuming any aircraft from the USAF could and would make it faster than that...

Hope this helps as I just flew this two weeks ago!

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2650    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:36 PM

View Postarenee, on 06 May 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:

A flight from Phoenix to Tucson in a regular plane is about a half hour. I'm assuming any aircraft from the USAF could and would make it faster than that...

Hope this helps as I just flew this two weeks ago!
Cool :)  Did you happen to see any ET piloted flares on your trip? :w00t:


#2651    arenee

arenee

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:56 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 06 May 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Cool :)  Did you happen to see any ET piloted flares on your trip? :w00t:
Indeed I always do!  Unfortunately it was a bunch of really hot women so I wasn't too interested in taking pics.
Sorry gentlemen!

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2652    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:18 AM

Were the 'Phoenix Lights' an airplane?





KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2653    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:33 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

Were the 'Phoenix Lights' an airplane?


Notice how none of this addresses the suggestion that it could have been multiple aircraft flying in formation at high altitude.

Personally, I agree with what he is saying.  I don't think it was a blimp.  Nor do I think the earlier sightings violated Class B airspace, which has a ceiling of 10,000 feet.


#2654    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:37 AM

Note the similarities.

Date: 1997


Posted Image


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: 1949

Posted Image


Posted Image

My link



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2655    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:39 AM

Did that report say 4' long? :lol:

Yep, you've got a match there skyeagle!  Great detective work! :tu:  :lol:  :w00t:  :no: