The ciriteria I use is the same the military uses, but doesn't tell the public. The three simplest are:

* Performance Chracteristics (confirmed visually, on radar, and ELINT systems

* Lack of Sonic Booms despite supersonic flight

* Visual descriptions. For an example, saucer-shaped metallic flying vehicles

Tie the three together and what we have is an object that has been identified as a metallic flying saucer capable of supersonic speeds and not leave behind a sonic boom with performance charateristics that have been confirmed visually, on multiple ground-based and airborne radar and ELINT systems.

Now, compare what we have already, and what has just been identified above to determine if the supersonic flying saucer was ours or not.

The Air Force has made that determination more than once. ( Not ours).

Ahh, so its down to personal interpretation, hmm?

Not this month, but probably in May or June.

Fact, just facts.

If a red car is red, then the red car is red. Seems some skeptics can't accept such facts.

Actually it does, and why meterologist have already concurred. In addition, commercial and military pilots, and the radar operators agreed as well and they are experts who should know.

I just assumed that you didn't see that video several months ago by what you have just posted.



I provided that data and as of yet, you have failed to present any advance technological data that refutes my data, now what are you goiing to do?

That is hardly a fair analogy as there is a physical condition anyway, what i mean is in the event of say the dogon tribe (i wont go into that just look them up if u are not aware of them) that is a situation quoted as a hoax but without the consideration of anything extra terrestrial, or maybe cases like over the bermuda triangle. (and be aware of lack of flotsam an jetsam) possibly just accidents maybe not. The best scientists are those that are open minded after all if we all had a determination to insist something could not be then we would all KNOW the world is flat we would be SURE we are the centre of the universe. And as for no proof Is that not slightly naive? After all if our governments where noble venerable institutions (ha! as if) then here is one reason not to admit aliens have or are visiting earth______ Radio broadcast of war of the worlds, look that up and see what happened, and anyway there is proof .... and you will see it soon enough

But, some of those objects were described by aircrews--military and commercial--that the UFOs they encountered were metallic saucer-shaped flying vehicles and radar systems tracked those vehicles at hypersonic speeds, which left no sonic boom behind.



Question is: Do we have such vehicles capable of hypersonic flight and capable of hovering 200 miles above Earth, as scientist in New Mexico noted in their own document after observing the objects doing just that?

But that doesnt give him the ability to point at any red car and say "hey, thats mine"

Concentrating on just one vehicle, it can if he has your title, your auto's serial number, license number in hand and matches them up with the auto he says is yours.

NOT 100% sure what u referring to but the lack of mapped stars does not nessacarily mean its false, unless of course the woman is an astronomer why woould she have noted everything and what do u mean that their perspective is different again says who we would have a map of our view and a new view if w were visiting elsewhere purely as a confirmation an navigation aid. Now also is the woman meant to be a memory magician i mean how many stars would satisfy you. The answer is you wont accept the possibility it could be real, if there had been a map of five whole galaxies with each star listed named an numbered in a new perspective cross referenced with our earth perspective you would say sorry too perfect must be a hoax so u see u have to choose to say it might be or to say no way it cant be an in never will be and then stop looking for proof and wait for it to fall in your back yard

How about the Air Force Academy? After all, look what they were telling their own cadets without telling the public!







If he is a chronic auto thief, he just might!

Its too bad you dont have that kind of information.



Yes... ironically, even THEY are reluctant to say "Alien craft" and say, rather, "UFO".



If he is a moron he might.

TEXAS has had some very big UFO incidents over the years. It has been recently revealed that the pilot of an F-117 stealth fighter also confirmed the UFO in this incident and eventually, NORAD admitted that it tracked the object as well.

No, I didn't. Is there a video where the military or a Government as an entity says that it is ET?!



It would be nice if you had quoted me in the entirety. But I will re-iterate my question from this post:



So, can you tell me if my interpretation of your posts is correct?! I.e., that you mean that the data in a report from 1969 dealing with a specific UFO radar case and a specific weather phenomena can be extrapolated to all UFO radar cases and all atmospheric phenomena?! That is basically what I read from it.

But as going for advance technological data, you conveniently overlooked this contaning an example of such data, showing that it actually exists naturally and the summary of my post was:



How about we start with that data!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Not for your friend, but I sure have a lot on flying saucers, a.k.a., UFOS.



When they are reluctant because of fear of any adverse reaction, it is easier to simply say; "unknown" and leave it at that, without admitting that it was ET. That way, they can sleep better at night wihtout explaining how they arrived at that conclusion in the first place.

But, there are those who are willing to testify under oath, that they are ET and say it publically.

The video is available if you have Real video. Also, an Iranian official went public already in regards to the 1976 Iranian UFO incident, as an extraterrestrial incident. That incident was also tracked by NORAD and our own intelligence services and even the DoD, had documents on that encounter that went all the way up to the White House.

The President of Brazil went public with documents after analysis confirmed that the flying saucer was authentic.

I supplied you with data, now use the information gathered by you and try to refute the data I posted. I have something to prove.

Also, I reviewed that link and scratching my head as to how is that suppose to explain metallic saucer-shaped vehicles with portholes, rotating beacon lights and visually confirmed as such, at which point, the vehicle proceeds to maneuver around an aircraft, sometimes for as long as an hour and a half before zooming off in a climb at hypersonic speed?

Are you implying that aircrews encountered plasmas and ball lightining when the descriptions of the encounter matched neither of those?!

We will all be running when the Vogons come and run the by-pass right thru or little planet! So get your towels everybody. DONTEATUS

The funny thing is, even you call them UFOs and flying saucers, not "alien ships" there...



Then its unfortunate for you, but it doesnt help your case.



Too bad they have no proof to back themselves up!

I don't need to refute it. You need to show that it can only be of ET origin with all other explanations exhausted.



You are wading around in all kinds of cases and data, intermixing everything. We are still discussing the Belgian UFO radar tracking data, so please stick with that and tell me exactly how that couldn't be caused by the referenced plasma phenomena.

After we are done with that, we can open the next case file and talk ET flying port hole equipped saucers.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Simple common sense would determine that since we don't have them, then, they are those of someone else other than us. Some skeptics fail to understand such logic and why they were pushing the weather balloon as proof that it was responsible for the Roswell incident, that is, unitl 1994!.



Actually not, because now, government officials are coming out and revealing documents, and data proving they are not ours.!




Read the message above.

That is what I expected, because had you tried, that would have clearly indicated that you are not familiar with what is being discussed in regards to radar contacts and UFOs, so perhaps, you now understand that after a number of analysis, the incident remains unexplained in terestrial terms and if you thought that you had the answer, I am very sure there are certain people who would be very interested and I would have notified them of what you have discovered.

That is how I am at times..

That is not hard evidence. There is a major question as the validity of The Bible in the first place. There is no hard evidence in Egyptian art of alien contact. Maybe the people who drew pictures of ship-like things were painting kites or balloons they could make or some other culture. All the evidence you cite is not hard, it's inconclusive. Hard evidence is evidence that can't easily be disputed. Now when you see an alien craft on CNN and three little green men jump out, that's what I call hard evidence. But saying that some painting or religious text from thousands of years ago is hard evidence is not going to convince anyone except the most gullible.

Hitman

So, lets see an official Government document stating that it was definitely ET.

Then you quoted this, I presume lifted from the Disclosure projetcs website here.



It would have been nice if you hade quoted some more. Lets see what comes right afterwards:



So it is Dr. Greer and his sidekick, Air Force Lt. Col. Charles Brown, making this assertion. Did those 20 (and 400+) witnesses ever come forwards to prove that assertion? No, they didn't.

Thus, this statement is basically useless as evidence in this case.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Here's a link to what SkyEagle quoted in post #1667, just so we can get the full context of what he was saying:
http://www.disclosureproject.org/PCR-Washi...Times-May10.htm

One question I have has to do with this:
(Bolding mine)
These whistleblowers don't seem to be worried about being erased, do they?

And Sky, do you know enough about physics to tell how something can break the sound barrier without causing a sonic boom? I know I asked that before, but don't recall you answering it.

Edit: I see Badeskov also has the same link. Still I have my question.

Of course not, aand not ny more than I am nor the former commanding General of Wright-Patterson AFB who went pubic years ago in statng that the Roswell incident involved exterrestrials.



I don't have an answer, and if I did, I would notify the proper folks, but the military and NASA have been working on the problem of the sonic boom over the years.

Skyeagle409-

I have not seen any video yet, about Iran or Brazil. But, I would just hesitate for a moment, before taking their word/analysis on anything. Who says this is not the result of their peculiar political and cultural baggage- trying to discredit the opposition, or buy off the support of others, who in their ignorance, would go for the hype and bait of "anti-U.S.", or "pro-Brazil" or some other version of political party manipulation or payoff. Probably small-time, though.

I would not trust them or their documents, except as having possibly routine and not so extraordinary information.

That sub-continent still has a strange mix of Catholicism and voodoo whatever. It is pervasive. There exists strange beliefs and values, and like everywhere else, corruption.

Uhm, no. Lets see what I said:



That is the scientific approach and the burden is upon your shoulders. I am perfect happy with it being unexplained.



It remains unexplained as we cannot go back and make more exhaustive measurements. Again, as pertaining to the Belgian UFO radar data, how can we exclude plasma phenomena?! Plasma phenomena has been shown to be able to behave just like your radar data indicates. Where is the scientific elimination of that? And I am not saying that it is the answer, just that it is a hypothesis just like ET and we cannot exclude it.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I would trust them based on what I knew about some of those incidents and where those documents originated from.

I already did, and went into great detail as well, so apparently, you still do not understand the nature of what the data evidence represents, especially since the radars of both aircraft were in STT mode. In that regard, there were no radar glitches and the signature was not indicative of any natural phenomena.

So I made the claim and you refused to refute it.

Presuming that we are still talking about the Belgian Radar Data, on the contrary, I have shown you links to a report stating that plasma phenomena can indeed:

* Be detected by radar (and we are not talking hazy distributed returns, but surface returns just like an aricraft would exhibit
* Can move very fast
* Can accelerate and make sharp turns
* Can have geometrical shapes
* Reacts to outside stimuli

Can you please tell me specifically what piece of data tells us that it can't be an atmospheric plasma event?! A radar in STT mode has no bearing on this as a plasma phenomena would yield a surface reflection, thus the radar would see a very nice, localized, fast moving return from such. You can't filter it out either, so you would have something moving like an aircraft, just with capabilities far beyond ours.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I forgot one thing: can you confirm or deny the following, as that would clear up some issues w/respect to my interpretation of your posts:



Cheers,
Badeskov

That data I provided is not indicative of any natural phenomena and as I provided yesterday, an example of what I was talking about in regards to throwing a rubber ball against a concrete wall and then, throw a bowling ball against that wall and note the difference in sound.

Radar "ghost angels" are sometimes picked up on radar but the radar filters them out and besides, radar controllers can easily identify such phenomena on their scopes as noted by Harry Barnes, senior radar controller, and are just filtered out, so what you are proving to me is, you have no concept of what radar signatures regarding those of natural phenomena and those of solid objects are all about.




I have to stop you right there!! The F-16's radar is an all-weather, multi-mode radar so what does that tell you if the radar is operating in STT mode or even in TWS or ACM modes? Once again, the data does not reflect any signature of any natural phenomena so it is surprising to me as to why you think the object could have been the result of any atmospheric phenomena..

There is another point that proves the object was NOT the result of any natural phenomena, known, or unknown. Do you know what it is?

It wasn't dealing with any specific case, but the Washtington D.C. incidents was one of those that was explained away as the result of mirages caused by temperture inversion, but that was proven incorrect in the 1969 Air Force Study. I have more to add from what I have posted before.



Also, the objects gathered together and surrounded an F-94 that was sent to intercept them, and the frightened pilot called back to ground controllers on what to do?



Dr. McDonald said it was impossible and the 1969 Air Force Study concurred.

On the contrary, but apparently you either didn't read what I wrote regarding your rubber/bowling ball example or simply didn't understand it, by all means of respect. So let me be very clear. A plasma when reflective will exhibit a surface reflection! A plasma will therefore act like a big metal shape with respect to radar. This is the important distinction to make and understand, as by far most weather phenomena (like thunder clouds and otherwise) exhibit distributed reflection throughout their volume, thus the hazy appearance on a radar scope and the ability to actually filter it out (by means of hardware or software).

Consequently, a plasma will be the equivalent of a metal shape (radar wise), can travel at hypersonic velocities (without a sonic boom), can have very high acceleration rates and have geometrical shapes. Can you tell me how to differentiat and filter that out?! And how can radar controllers identify something like that when the likelyhood of them actually ever encountering it is rather small?!



The F-16 radar (AN/APG-66) is indeed an all-weather, multi mode radar with a whole host of modes, none of which are exclude-phenomena-not-known-or-too-similar-to-an-aircraft. I honestly don't see what Single Target Track, Air Combat Maneuvering or Track While Scan has to do with this. These modes cannot eliminate what I described above, mainly just up the odds of tracking it.

Again, a reflective plasma does not give the same return as a rain cloud, but rather that of a solid object!



As pertaining to the Belgian Radar data, no I do not - please do enlighten me.

Cheers,
Badeskov

OK, now we are getting somewhere. So the above concludes that mirages or temperature inversions could not have been the cause of what was described in 1952 in Washington. Fine. How does this have any bearing whatsoever on the radar data you posted? Or my plasma explanation?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Once again, you have proven to me that you have no idea of the relationship between solid radar contacts and those of natural phenomena nor the specifics of air intercept radars. I can't make that fact any simpler than that!

You really have to know what you are talking about before you post references.

Because the data does not reflect any signature of any natural phenomena and this was one of those radar/visual cases, so natural phenomena was already excluded by that very fact, which means that you were not familiar on what the data revealed nor of the incident in quesition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcv_-OX9-WQ...feature=related

And just how does a reflective plasma signature look like on radar, sky?

And, by all means of respect, you have just shown that you either don't read what I post or don't like the consequences of it. A reflective plasma will be like a metal object with respect to radar returns, I can't be more clear and concise than that. Not like a rain cloud!

Are you going to argue that a reflective plasma is not a surface reflector, but rather a distributed reflector?

Cheers,
Badeskov

In this incident regarind the flight of Aemerica West, B-757 over TEXAS, , NORAD later admitted to tracking the UFO, which was later visually confirmed by the pilot of an F-117 stealth fighter. Partial video only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRxI72qXt_4...feature=related

Emphasis mine. No. Reflective plasmas tend not to have a signature of normal natural phenomena. Which I have iterated over and over, but I guess to no avail.



And how exactly does this exclude plasmas?

Cheers,
Badeskov

With the filter on, or off?

Doesn't make any difference.

We are talking distinct and unique radar signatures, not just reflections.

1. With the filter off.
2. And just how does this filter discriminate the reflective plasma from an actual airplane?

Uhm, yes it does. Radar signatures are based on reflections from an illuminated target and how that reflection looks determines what we are looking at. And a distribued reflection (weather) is vastly different from a surface reflection (aircraft, or reflective plasma).

Cheers,
Badeskov

Ground-based radars! Blobs



I think I see where you are going with this, so what I would like for you to do is to do some homework for me and I will give you something to go on so you can answer your own question.

The radar of the F-16, or other air intercept radars for that matter, is of the "lookdown" type, and what does that mean? They use ?????? technology to eliminate ground-based reflections or clutter if you will, to where they will only track an aircraft-type target and disregard all other reflective objects and since it is also an all-weather radar as well, weather-related reflections as well.

In fact, it can also disregard reflections of ocean waves to where only the beam return of an aircraft is only displayed. Remember, I mentioned before that the radar of a multi-mode system and I just told you what it can do, but I would like for you to tell us how it is done and why reflections that you and badeskov think is possilbe, does not happen.

Review the video where the lead F-16 pilot stated that he didn't believe that the object was weather-related and I never believed it either.

I am going to pose the same message as I had done to Stella since the radar system is of the all-weather "lookdown" type that eliminates clutter from other surfaces except aircraft. On sea modes, how does it eliminate refletive clutter from ocean waves and depicts only returns of aircraft?
.

Here is what I wrote to Stella and I pose the same to you.


I think I see where you are going with this, so what I would like for you to do is to do some homework for me and I will give you something to go on so you can answer your own question.

The radar of the F-16, or other air intercept radars for that matter, are of the "lookdown" type, and what does that mean? It uses ?????? technology to eliminate ground-based reflections or clutter if you will, to where they will only track an aircraft-type target and disregard all other reflective objects and since it is also an all-weather radar as well, weather-related reflections as well.

In fact, it can also disregard reflections of ocean waves to where only the beam return of an aircraft is only displayed. Remember, I mentioned before that the radar of a multi-mode system and I just told you what it can do, but I would like for you to tell us how it is done and why reflections that you and badeskov think is possile, does not happen.

Review the video where the lead F-16 pilot stated that he didn't believe that the object was weather-related and I never believed it either.

So to prove that you are not here for the purpose of debunking, how about confirming what I have just said? To sum it up, pilots cannot afford to be distracted by weather-related phenomena on their radar scope when they are on a life and death mission in an airborne dogfight arena where a simple mistake of just two seconds can spell your doom.

What kind of blobs? How would these blobs look like on the radar screen?



And how exactly does the radar determine whether this reflection which reads like an aircraft is created by an actual craft or a phenomena which reflects the beams the same way as an aircraft?