I agree, this is certainly not an atmospheric phenomena. The problem with the Belgian UFO ti me is that it is shrouded in so much doubt that it is hard to verify the images and data presented. I honestly can't give an explanation, and it is not due to a lack of urge to actually do so.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Let us now look at the famous picture taken at Petit-Rechain. It was internationally distributed by the SOBEPS team and was used for the covers of the two books which this private organization published about the so-called Belgian UFO wave.

The document depicts a black triangular silhouette against a bluish background supposed to be the night sky. One irregular illuminated surface appears in each corner of the triangle. In the centre there is a luminous spot surrounded by a reddish aura.

There are discrepancies between the photo itself and the testimony of the young man who claims to have taken it. The picture was reportedly taken with a reflex-camera equipped with a 55-200mm zoom lens set at a minimum of 150mm. The photographer alleges that he used a long time exposure (between one and two seconds) and pressed the shutter release button for approximately two seconds. But he also said he simply held the camera with his hands against the corner of a wall. Even if he exaggerated, and the shutter button was pressed only for one second, the object photographed could not have had sharp edges; it would have been completely blurred. On the contrary, the triangular object shows at least one sharp edge. The young man said he saw the enormous object in the company of his girl friend. This second eye-witness was so little impressed by the extraordinary apparition that she didn't even keep her eyes on it! At one instance she said the object left instantaneously and at another time she admitted that she actually never saw it leave. More important: Pierre Magain, an astrophysicist from the Astrophisics Institute of Liège has mathematically demonstrated that the size attributed to the object by the young photographer is completely different from what the camera captured. So, one can conclude that the testimonies of the two witnesses are completely irrelevant to the picture.

Radar data is considered a form of physical evidence in the aviation community and the FAA and the NTSB have used radar data as evidence in many cases involving aircraft accidents to verify incidents as they happened.

Ah, the infamous Petit-Rechain photo surfaces again (que theme from Jaws. Or maybe we could reenact a scene from Moby Dick, "Thar she blows!--thar she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby Dick!").
Well, here's an alternative explanation (which will no doubt be debunked with the 'Stoopid Skeptics' Defence )

DEBUNKER has a point in that last post, Sky...



You need to show us evidence Sky, beyond all other possible explanations, that there are alien spaceships on Earth. How can you be 100% sure that the UFOs you believe to be ETs arent terrestrial timetravelers from our future? Or someother "unknown exotic" explanation.

Answer... You cant be sure!

And if your not 100% sure, well then, as I see it, you are wrong and the skeptics are right.

Once again, you are twisting things. I did not "prove the guy wrong". I don't know who you're talking about, and I'm not even sure a debate such as you're describing ever took place! I only have your word on that, and frankly, I don't believe it, unless you can post that debate so I can read it.

Wed, 08 Nov 2000 12:44:15 -0600

Author: Errancy Archive <earchive@blondguys.net>

Subject: Re: FWD: Good sites on creationism

Body: -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: FWD: Good sites on creationism
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:13:17 -0700
From: Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net>
Reply-To: errancy@infidels.org
To: errancy@infidels.org
CC: Theoflus@aol.com

At 11:08 AM 04/19/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>In a message dated 4/17/00 6:33:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
>jftill@midwest.net writes:
>
><<
> CARRELL
> >Here are some interesting sites on Christian evidence. Perhaps it would do
> >you good to browse these. You might learn something you didn't know.
>
> >http://www.lordibelieve.org/
> >
> >Christian evidence supporting faith in the Bible account of
> >creation.
>
> TILL
> Bill, I've never looked at this site before. Who maintains it? Is he
> someone who would permit the publication of replies to his articles? Would
> he agree to join a list like Errancy and defend the foundation of his
> creationist beliefs, which would be a belief that the Bible is inerrant? Is
> he willing to go to a site like talk.origins and defend his creationist
> views before the highly informed audience that he will encounter there, or
> is he the type who merely wants to present the "pulpit stuff" that the
> average Bible believer doesn't know enough about to question? >>
>
>[Carrell]
>Two comments. Why don't you ask him? And why don't you look at this and the
>other sites I mentioned? Farrell, your freedom to ride roughshod over
>everything that is holy is coming to an end. You're going to be swamped by
>the accumulating evidence on the WEB.
>
TILL
The only ones who are being swamped are the "creation scientists" who
have before them a body of scientific information that they will never be
able to explain away.

Anyway, your claim reminds me of a fellow named Aubrey
Matthews who was on the Errancy list about three or four years ago.
(You may have been a member then.) He bragged and bragged that Noah's ark
had been discovered and that a startling announcement of the discovery would
be made in January, which was only two or three months away at the time.
This announcement was going to make me eat my words.
Well, guess what happened, Bill. January came and went, and Aubrey went
too. I haven't heard from him since.

I'll repeat my question, Bill. Why don't you write up your findings
that prove special creation and disprove evolution, and then present them for
peer approval. After the world community of scientists have been unable
to disprove your evidence, you will be numbered among the most famous names
in scientific history. The service that you will render Christianity and
the Bible cannot even be estimated.

So why don't you do this, Bill. If the accumulating evidence is going
to "swamp" me, there must be enough of it out there now for you to get
started on making a name for yourself and rendering an invaluable service to
"God."


Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.

"Originally posted by hazzard"



Well logically speaking if causality is what it is then the terrestial time travelers from the future are risking their own existance by time travelling into the past. To be even more logical about it time travel is bullsh** and not possible.

Well i'm sure that skeptics aren't 100% sure either. If you were 100% sure then you could prove it which you don't seems to be doing. All you can base your 100% cartainty on is the fact that the opposing side can't prove it to your standerds.

"But, the experts said that atmosphere phenomena had nothing to do with any of the UFO case files I presented, which explains why they are still unexplained in terrestrial terms to this very day despite extensive scientific scrutiny.

I am very sure that this object is not the result of any atmospheric phenomena. Based on the differences in imagery of the 3 outboad lights, can you tell me what the UFO was doing at the time this photo was taken?"

And.....MAYBE when nuclear weapons began being used and tested.....some ETs made themselves
known to the various governments....to try and 'sort out' a serious problem that could affect other
areas of space......or could mess up life on Earth, in a big way......for a very, very long time.

Although huge numbers of people believe that life exists somewhere 'out there'......I think they
would be shocked to find out that governments have been keeping ACTUAL contact/meetings
a secret....for 50+ years.........I know I was!

Then there's the question of technology that has been got from ETs......perhaps given/exchanged (?)
Or perhaps learnt about from crashed ET flying vehicles.

Then there's the matter of 'interdimensional travel' ...and...things about the Moon and Mars....that it
appears that some governments know about....and are actively engaged in.....in ways that....again....
may have been kept secret....for a long time.....which is not on....as the tax-payers who financed
most of it.....have been cheated out of the 'fruits' of their labour, so to speak.

So.....I'd say there is lots that could be disclosed to the general public.....but it's tricky for the
ones who have kept the secrets......because, as everyone knows.....the longer you keep a secret,
the harder it is to 'come clean'.....because the deception mounts up and up.

I have come across, in disclosure related stuff.... the possibility that the 'people' at the very top.....
those 'in the know'.....and in control of.....keeping it under wraps.....are divided about going for all
out disclosure...one lot want the public to be told....and the other lot are dead against it.

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

Oh....and maybe the ETs (who-ever-they-may-be) might show themselves in an organised way, publically
one day soon?
Or perhaps they see no need to 'prove' their existence to human-kind at the moment.

It's very hard for 'ordinary people' like myself, to figure it all out in detail....because we aren't in
possession of the full facts.

And what radar data identifies a craft as "alien in origin"? As far as I know... radar data just gives you position over a period of time, from which you can determine speed and so on... but not origin.

Unfortunately said debate no longer exists in it's entirety. I'm guessing that due to a server crash in 1997, they were only able to save some of the mesages from 95-96, and then a move to another server, at a later date, for those archieves lost some more... sad.gif

But Till was still thinking of Sky back in 2000 (about 3 years after he left)...

Speculation as to ET's motives aside, the destruction of all life on Earth (or indeed, the annihilation of the planet period) wouldn't cause any distress at all to the galaxy. I don't know enough about orbital mechanics to say what it might do to the rest of the solar system, but my guess would be...it would do very little. So it seems that ET wouldn't be very concerned about us using nuclear weapons, and no one from "out there" has interfered on a scale perceptible to the mass public concerning nuclear tests or even power plants.

Did that make any sense?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Yes it did, to me at least. I was thinking of the asteroid belt when I wrote my post, and how that really hasn't had much (any?) effect on the orbits/status of the other planets. (Honestly, I was just hedging my bet.)

And if galaxies are able to collide with no appreciable damage to the rest of the cosmos, why should the destruction of Earth have any bearing on...anything? It'd make for a very bad day for humanity of course, but the point is, and I think we agree on this, that humanity, and by extension, Earth, is very insignificant in relation to Everything Else.

If you don't mind, but I think the point Hazzard is trying to make is that we simply do not know! As I see it the time traveler hypothesis was just thrown in there as another possibility that we can neither prove nor disprove.

As it is, we really have no evidence to support ET visitation in my honest opinion.

Still no response skyeagle, this is just adding to evidence that you cherrypick posts!!

Is it any wonder why many experts are saying otherwise, and why a number of nations are now saying that the UFOs in question, are intelligently controlled crafts?

People are talking, but who is listening?!

The report concluded that UFOs had an observable presence that was “indisputable”, but also that they did not represent crafts under intelligent control. According to it's author/s most UFO sightings were likely the result the misidentification of common object such as aircraft and balloons, or were the result of known/ little-understood astronomical or meteorological phenomena (such as meteorites and atmospheric magnetic disturbances) which would not be recognized by most observers.

Yes, because you mentioned the 1969 report, which could really only refer to Dr. McDonald. But we can let that rest as I think we agree that temperature inversion had nothing to do with it.

And I am sure that the ET hypothesis has been given ample thought and been discarded.

Not sure where you get that from. I was refereing specifically to the F-16 airborne platform and especially the STT radar mode, which is why I was wondering about the continuous wavelength radar reference. But I am sorry if I misunderstood you. Please do enlighten me

Like the British that states in the Condign report:

Where do we have an official report stating that such sightings are most likely craft under intelligent control?!

More like these folks:

* Highly experienced commercial and military pilots

* Senior military and intelligence officials, worldwide

* Hightly experienced radar operators and experts

* Scientist and engineers who have been observing UFOs in space and within the atmosphere.

* Many astonomers

* Millions of other folks around the globe today, and over the centuries.



I have posted several times, references to that effect, so I will go back and repost them for you so give me a few minutes of your time and I'll be right back.

Yes, because you mentioned the 1969 report, which could really only refer to Dr. McDonald. But we can let that rest as I think we agree that temperature inversion had nothing to do with it.

First of all, those people hardly spoke on behalf of their nation, thus it is their own opinion. And by opinion I mean exactly that, opinion.

That is what I have been telling skeptics at another UFO message board, but they had a bit of trouble believing me, and one of them is known to Hazzard and has posted on the Bad Astronomy message board.

Not in any of the UFO cases I posted, and the proof is in the fact that the cases remain unexplained because they have been unable to find any aircraft that can mimic the performance charateristics of crafts that were known to be artificial objects and not the result of any natural phenomenon.

During the time of the incidents, were their other ground-based radar systems tracking that triangular-shaped UFO?

What kind of systems also confirmed that object?

Given the fact the nature of the contacts and data evidence by multiple radar systems of different types, there was no way in heck that UFO could ahve been the result of any natural phenomena and the point I was making is, a continuous-wave radar can see what a pulse-doppler radar system cannot, but when both systems are singing in harmony, then I hope you are getting the point that natural phenomena played no part in this incident and there is one further proof that underlines that fact and guess what it is?!

Now I am feeling uninformed. Which experts would those be? Could you point me to a reference that I can read somewhere?

I agree, this is certainly not an atmospheric phenomena.

In fact, there is a professor who teaches at a military institute who is an expert on radar technology and who examined the data, said just that!

The
Colonel who conducted the news conference, said that ET cannot be excluded from that incident.

He said it on video so there was no question as to what he said.

The
Colonel who conducted the news conference, said that ET cannot be excluded from that incident.

He said it on video so there was no question as to what he said.

As pertaining to the radar data, I presume. I can't speak for other cases

Hang on. Nobody can state that it is not caused by atmospheric phenomena.

Emphasis mine. I am sorry to be blunt, but that is just plain out wrong. Why would different radar systems be able to differentiate if we have an atmospheric phenomena having the same radar return as an aircraft?!

The problem is that if something like that exhibit a radar cross section of a broad range of frequencies then there is no way to eliminate it by using different radars.

Ahh, so the Col. DIDNT say it was ET!

But as we've noted, anything that confirms your belief.

I'm out for the night.

That was back then, and he said he wasn't going to exclude ET since the data proved that the object was not man-made.

After all, it doesn't sound right if you tell a friend that it is your belief that you own a car.

The Air Force practice different techniques for dealing with both, continuous-wave and pulse-doppler radars. You can have both radars next to one another and depending on the direction an aircraft is heading, it will show up on one type of radar, but not on the other even though they are in close proximity of one another. That can also help explain why some UFOs do not show up on some radars in certain cases.

Also, radars have filters to take care of the problem of natural phenomena, because radar operators cannot be distracted by radar "ghost angels" as they are trying to guide numerous aircraft in close proximity of one another and air intercept radars are of the all-weather type because you cannot have fair weather interceptors only in this time of age.

The enemy might not play fair and decide to conduct bombing missions during bad weather and if you have only fair-weather interceptors whose radars cannot deal with bad weather...well I think you can get the message.

The 1969 Air Force Study for one, and meterologist and radar experts for another,in addition to the other folks I have mentioned already.

And what is so specific in radar data that points to non-terrestrial origin (except strange maneuvers)? Badeskov referenced to research of Hessdalen phenomenon (2004), while you...

and columns of numbers (that is maneuvers) only.
Nonlinear effects, polarization?... concretize please.

As has been discussed- fake pictures, altered transcripts, and inconsequential testimony and opinions, do not support visitors from outer space.

Ride all you want.

It leads nowhere.

Radar, shmadar. What about stealth???

No... he said that he wasnt going to exclude ET. That is far different from him saying it was ET.

When you see a red car driving around, and you know your friend just baught a red car, are you going to say that that red car belongs to your friend?

To sum it up, the Air Force confirms that incidents of the kind I have been presenting, cannot be attributed to temperture inversion mirages of the atmosphere.

But, I did not need that report to make that determination on the UFO radar/visual cases.

Do your home work
Try these links for starters-
CIA FOI UFO Files Link
The UFO 'Napster' on Physics Forum Link
The National Archieves Project Blue Book FOI Link
Project 1947 Link
SkepticReport 'The Belgian UFO Wave' (You might as well see what the other side has to say) Link
Spooky Paradigm 'Analysing Hauts Roswell Afidavit' (and then check out the rest of the blogspot, since it has a link to MUFON's journals) Link
Skeptics Info Link
Stupid UFOlogy Tricks (and follow the response and counter-response also) Link
and last but not least, my personal favourites-
The Other Side of Truth Blogspot Link
The Mangonia Supplement Link

Oh, it couldn't hurt to read up on Jacques Vallee either Link

Otherwise "LOL. Look at what you posted Do your homework!"

Hi there........and to add to the list of links posted earlier........

DISCLOSURE PROJECT

PROJECT CAMELOT

enjoy!

(any problems with these links.... you can do an internet search.....)

Try this thread....that map means absolutely nothing.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Umm, aside from you giving me a link that talked about the Betty and Barney case, and you saying it means nothing, again I haven't read the book, I am asking if this is evidence that shows these ET are just that Extra, if you have found the map to be flawed or suspicious or why you say it means nothing other then your opinion...uh I would like to know cause I was just about to buy that book by Friedman. Other wise I think this would by definition count as Evidence and be considered Exhibit A. If not then so be it...

Whynsos

Just a hint.

"Menkello, F. G. "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages," Report
No. 6112, Menkello is a first lieutenant, USAF, Environmental
Technical Applications Center. "It is easy to show that the 'air
lenses' and 'strong inversions' postulated by Gordon and Menzel,
among others, would need temperatures of several thousand degrees
Kelvin in order to cause the mirages attributed to them."


To sum it up, the Air Force confirms that incidents of the kind I have been presenting, cannot be attributed to temperture inversion mirages of the atmosphere.

But, I did not need that report to make that determination on the UFO radar/visual cases.

The radar data was incredible enough that the government decided to present it at an international press conference, which incidently, was even reported in the Wall Street Journal.

The experts can, and already have.!

Do this as an example on what I am talking about.

Take a small rubber ball and tag it as natural phenmena and throw at a concrete wall. Next, take a bowling ball and tag it as a UFO, and throw it at that wall. Can you tell the difference in sound?

Is it any wonder then, why radar controllers have asserted time and again, they can easily differentiate between natural phenomena and real solid objects.

The Air Force practice different techniques for dealing with both, continuous-wave and pulse-doppler radars. You can have both radars next to one another and depending on the direction an aircraft is heading, it will show up on one type of radar, but not on the other even though they are in close proximity of one another. That can also help explain why some UFOs do not show up on some radars in certain cases.

Also, radars have filters to take care of the problem of natural phenomena, because radar operators cannot be distracted by radar "ghost angels" as they are trying to guide numerous aircraft in close proximity of one another and air intercept radars are of the all-weather type because you cannot have fair weather interceptors only in this time of age.

The enemy might not play fair and decide to conduct bombing missions during bad weather and if you have only fair-weather interceptors whose radars cannot deal with bad weather...well I think you can get the message.

Have you ever seen one jot of proof that any of whats been sighted, reported, filmed, or photographed has ever, in any way, been shown to be alien. I do not deny that some things might be alien. Im all for that. What I do deny is that there has been any proof of it.

You see, I do not deal in belief. I deal in knowledge. There is a vast difference between the two. You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief.

There is no reason to get upset about it. What needs to be understood is the burden of proof that science and its method requires.

As believers begin to build the case about UFO = Aliens, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

But there are no real scientific evidence or Facts.Until we can prove 100% that these are not earth based ships - we are guessing. So, what it all comes down to is EVIDENCE..!!!

Were is it!?

Lets take a look a the oriiginal post!


[reasonable, logical, justifiable OP comments attached...]



There we go... Ok people...Lets take it from there,,,!

That was back then, and he said he wasn't going to exclude ET since the data proved that the object was not man-made.

However, ET was thrown in by others who were experts in their field, including the professor who teaches at a military institute, made that assessmemt right on video.

Since he bought the car, he is not going to say that it is his belief the car is his and since it is his car, which is reality, he is going to come straight out and say the car is his.

Lets take a look a the oriiginal post!






There we go... Ok people...Lets take it from there,,,!