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.


* * - - - 3 votes

[Merged] Pilot / UFO encounters

mantell ufo gorman dogfight gorman ufo chiles-whitted ufo

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#16    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:16 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 03 July 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

You don't argue your point too well. My question was in reference to your comment that there were several witnesses. It seems there was one. Your personal attack is a weak attempt to cover and distract from the inaccuracy of your statement. You've been called on it and have no way to answer it - so abuse is your final option. Not very clever.
What are your non-professional, non-experienced thoughts on the third UFO/pilot reported encounter of 1948 given above, which had two pilot testimonies, which tie extremely well with the testimony of Gorman?

Edited by RingFenceTheCity, 03 July 2013 - 09:17 AM.

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#17    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:33 AM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

What are your non-professional, non-experienced thoughts on the third UFO/pilot reported encounter of 1948 given above, which had two pilot testimonies, which tie extremely well with the testimony of Gorman?

Still avoiding the topic, aren't you?
If you don't want to (or can't) answer, then just say so. If you continue in your attempts to muddy the waters, I'll keep asking.


#18    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 19,627 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:37 AM

RingFence, people are entitled to disagree with your opinions and conclusions without being subjected to insults, if you are going to make derogatory personal remarks about anyone who doesn't agree with you then this thread is going to end up closed very quickly.

RingFenceTheCity said:

Not even the moderators have the gumption to protect the character of professionals from the off-hand comments from unqualified who-knows-whos.
Disagreeing with an interpretation of a pilot's testimony does not constitute defamation of character.


#19    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 5,685 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

Posted 03 July 2013 - 10:04 AM

This was in 1948 FCS.
We also have this from the article:

One pilot's Mustang was low on fuel, and he quickly abandoned his efforts. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (the first head of Project Blue Book) notes that there was some disagreement amongst the air traffic controllers as to Mantell's words as he communicated with the tower: some sources[6] reported that Mantell had described an object "[which] looks metallic and of tremendous size," but, according to Ruppelt in The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, others disputed whether or not Mantell actually said this.

You seem to be creating arguments with people on here and yet they did not even agree with each other back then!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#20    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 10:44 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 03 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:



Still avoiding the topic, aren't you?
If you don't want to (or can't) answer, then just say so. If you continue in your attempts to muddy the waters, I'll keep asking.
It's obvious that he was the only witness, otherwise it would have been stated in the Wikipedia entry, wouldn't it?

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#21    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:00 AM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

It's obvious that he was the only witness, otherwise it would have been stated in the Wikipedia entry, wouldn't it?

Apparently, not obvious to you.

You wrote:

Quote

FYI. Incredible details and multiple witnesses.

and

Quote

There was another two highly credible witnesses too, as well as the WWII vet:

These comments were both in reference to the 'Gorman' incident.

But at least you now acknowledge that fact. That was the only point I was making - the one that seemed to get you all riled up.

Edited by Arbenol68, 03 July 2013 - 11:01 AM.


#22    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:21 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 03 July 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

...
There were two additional witnesses who saw the bright light. The pilot of the P-51 chased the UFO and was the only witness of the maneuvers.

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#23    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:24 AM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

There were two additional witnesses who saw the bright light. The pilot of the P-51 chased the UFO and was the only witness of the maneuvers.

That's what I said.

View PostArbenol68, on 03 July 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

"Cannon and his passenger answered that they could also see a lighted object to the west."

However, no one but the pilot (Gorman) reported seeing it doing any kind of manoeuvres. That, in itself, lends a certain credibility to the conclusions of the original investigation. Several people saw the light, but (unless you can provide evidence to the contrary) only Gorman saw it doing aerobatics.



#24    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:28 AM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

What are your non-professional, non-experienced thoughts on the third UFO/pilot reported encounter of 1948 given above, which had two pilot testimonies, which tie extremely well with the testimony of Gorman?
So what about answering this question now we've cleared that up?

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#25    dannyboy52

dannyboy52

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male

  • You Can Fool Some People All Of The Time,And All Of The People Some Of The Time, But You Cant Fool All Of The People All Of The Time

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

This is an internet forum, not the Spanish Inquisition, everyone is entitled to their opinion


#26    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:31 PM

View Postdannyboy52, on 03 July 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

This is an internet forum, not the Spanish Inquisition, everyone is entitled to their opinion
Not if it is tarnishing the character of professional WWII jet pilots. Why should people who hide behind daft avatars, who have no come back what-so-ever, be able to say what ever they want?

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#27    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,599 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:41 PM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Not if it is tarnishing the character of professional WWII jet pilots. Why should people who hide behind daft avatars, who have no come back what-so-ever, be able to say what ever they want?
Professional WW2 jet pilots? This was not in ww2 nor any allied jets in WW2.
Just because "Professional" does not mean its true


#28    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:53 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 03 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:


Professional WW2 jet pilots? This was not in ww2 nor any allied jets in WW2.
Just because "Professional" does not mean its true
Duh, professional P-51 pilots then. Professional means that these people have careers and families at stake. They have significant come-back if they get things wrong. Unlike the torrent of misinformed, under-achievers on this site.

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#29    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,458 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:56 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 03 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Professional WW2 jet pilots? This was not in ww2 nor any allied jets in WW2.
Just because "Professional" does not mean its true
Besides, were there any amateur fighter pilots during WWII?  The word "professional" is surely redundant.

I gotta say, smugfish/tailormaneinafog/rewlahool/etc. accusing others of hiding behind silly avatars and offering their non-expert and non-professional opinion is without a doubt the most blatant example of hypocrisy I've come across on this forum.

RingFenceTheCity, what's your expertise and professional credentials that allow you to make your various grandiose claims about dogmanraxes, underwater inverted swimming giant owls, glowbirds, etc. and their breeding habits, feeding habits, nesting behaviour, etc.  Why do you hide behind silly avatars and change your name as fast as the forum rules allow if you look down upon that kind of behaviour?

Edited by JesseCuster, 03 July 2013 - 06:00 PM.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#30    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,458 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2013 - 06:00 PM

View PostRingFenceTheCity, on 03 July 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Duh, professional P-51 pilots then. Professional means that these people have careers and families at stake.
Professional does not mean you have a family at stake.  Where did you get that idea?

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users