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.


- - - - -

Ufo poll


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

Poll: Ufo's paranormal (59 member(s) have cast votes)

Have you seen a UFO?

  1. Yes (28 votes [47.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.46%

  2. No (15 votes [25.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.42%

  3. I think so (16 votes [27.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.12%

What do you think UFO's are?

  1. Time travellers (4 votes [6.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.78%

  2. Extraterrestial intelligent beings (43 votes [72.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.88%

  3. Secret gorvement aircraft (7 votes [11.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.86%

  4. Optical ilusions or human imagination (5 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

  5. Terrorists (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Which UFO's do you think are the real ones and not fake?

  1. Triangale UFO's (5 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

  2. Cigar shaped UFO's (4 votes [6.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.78%

  3. Eliptical UFO's (11 votes [18.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.64%

  4. V shaped UFO's (1 votes [1.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

  5. Small probe UFO's (2 votes [3.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.39%

  6. All of them are UFO's (36 votes [61.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.02%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,021 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:44 AM

Quote

name='badeskov' date='Oct 29 2006, 12:59 AM' post='1408469']
Last time I checked no air force had a craft that could pull such maneuvers  grin2.gif But who says it was a craft? Why not a lightening phenomena of some kind that could be tracked by radar? That could be anything, really.
Best,
Badeskov


Because the radar contacts in question were indicative of large metallic objects, not the result of  natural phenomena and in many  cases, the objects were visually confirmed as artificial flying machines and in some of those cases the  objects reacted to radar lock-ons, which suggest they were intelligently controlled.

The durations also exclude ball lightning and other weather- related phenomena as well. Meteorologist and scientific studies have shown that natural phenomena was not responsible for the UFOs in questions and pilots and ATC ground controllers who were involved in those incidents have concurred with the conclusions. Experienced radar controllers can easily differentiate between radar 'ghost angels' caused by temperature inversions (soft targets) and contacts of objects such as aircraft (hard targets). For an example, you are holding a rock (hard target) in your left hand and a sponge (soft target) in your right and with your eyes closed you can easily differentiate between the two and that is why the UFOs in question could not have resulted from weather-related phenomena.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 October 2006 - 12:46 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#32    Kazahel

Kazahel

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,970 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The West.

  • What need is there of seeing, in the presence of His gratitude?

Posted 29 October 2006 - 02:52 AM

I've seen a couple. The first time I saw a ufo I was about 15 and in my house just watching tv, when this little red square about twice the size of a coke can went slowly floating past the window. It was just like a small red light which as it went past, it was like it slowed down time because I tried to stand up to walk to the window but it was like walking through water. It was really weird because I remember seeing it go down the road even though I had not made it to the window. It was almost like it dragged me out of body for a moment and when it left my vision I found myself back on the couch watching the ending of the movie again like nothing had happened.

The next time I was about 17 and I woke up and found a very bright blue crystal(about the size of a car)which was hovering above my house. I basically woke up and looked out the window(because bright blue light was shining in making it look like day time)and I could hear a pulsating humming kinda sound which is all what woke me up. Anyway I looked out the window and saw this blue crystal which hovered about 1 meter above the roof top. Which was the beginning of the 'Blue light dream' I had.

The best time though(outside with witnesses)I was at a girlfriends house and I saw what looked like a star fall from the sky but it just vanished and reappeared where it had started. It did this about maybe 10 times. After that sighting I saw on the news the next night that a triagle ship had been reported and that it had been seen all over the world. Which it was good to hear(that others had seen it).


#33    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,170 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 29 October 2006 - 06:17 PM

Quote


The fireballs are a cloak for a triangular ship...I saw one come uncloaked..it was amazing.... yes.gif


Why is it that I have a hard time with this cloaking theory? Could it be because physics has a very hard time with cloaking? Consider this, if we want to cloak something perfectly, we will need the object to do two things:

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.
2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself

Not only is that exceedingly hard to do in reality, but it also makes any object with that feature deaf and blind. And how does one control a blind ship? Sorry, but to me that is one of those fantastic features that sounds great on Star Trek, but nowhere else...

Best,
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.

#34    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,021 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 30 October 2006 - 06:19 PM

Quote

name='badeskov' date='Oct 29 2006, 06:17 PM' post='1409092']
Why is it that I have a hard time with this cloaking theory? Could it be because physics has a very hard time with cloaking? Consider this, if we want to cloak something perfectly, we will need the object to do two things:

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.
2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself

Not only is that exceedingly hard to do in reality, but it also makes any object with that feature deaf and blind. And how does one control a blind ship? Sorry, but to me that is one of those fantastic features that sounds great on Star Trek, but nowhere else...

1) any electromagnetic signal would have to "wrap around" the object. Meaning that if we send a radar signal towards the object, it would circumvent it and continue behind it.

Best,
Badeskov


Actually, cloaking is not far-fetched, especially for alien beings millions of years more advanced than mankind,  and now, a new type of observation device has been developed for the military that practically disappears from view. Here's another developement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

SCIENTIST DEVELOPE HARRY POTTER STYLE INVISIBILITY 'CLOAK'

"It sounds straight from the pages of Harry Potter - but researchers have developed an "invisibility cloak" that will allow people, planes, tanks and even ships to disappear."

"But sadly the cloak, developed by a British and American team, cannot grab light waves and make objects invisible to us - it can only make them disappear from radar screens."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Quote

2) it cannot emit any signals whatsoever itself


Submarines can operate passively and can detect other objects while in passive mode. In other words, it can detect other ships and submarines without emitting any signals. Some military aircraft can operate passively as well and detect other aircraft while in passive mode. The B-2 and the F-22 have features, which allow them to operate in times of war in ways that would have been considered science fiction as recently as the 1980s. If we have come that far in 2 decades and went from the first flight of an airplane to the space station in less than one hundred years, how far will we be technologically speaking,  1000 years from now? What about the advanced technology of alien beings of today who are where we will be in 200 million years from now? How about one billion years or even further?

I just found this and wanted to add this as well to show that what was science fiction yesterday, is now science fact. There were skeptics who'd said that it couldn't be done so the believers went out and proved that it could be done.

U.S. Air Force Debuts Laser-Weapon Aircraft

WICHITA, Kan.   The U.S. Missile Defense Agency rolled out an airborne laser aircraft on Friday, the latest development in a missile-defense system that was once ridiculed as a "Star Wars" fantasy.

user posted image

Never say that it can't be done because, as history has shown, eventually someone will prove that it can.

Edited by skyeagle409, 31 October 2006 - 12:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users