Hazzard,

You totally missed the point! Based on the interviews, (pilot, Colonel and the professor) and eyewitness accounts, I wanted you to prove that based on the facts, that plasma was not responsible for that incident.

Now, are you up to the task or do I have to reiterated my claim that some skeptics don't do homework, and if they did, don't do it properly. Are you going to confirm my claim as factual in your case?



Those determinations were made after anallysis were done on the data and eyewitness accounts. Some skeptics didn't know that, which is amazing since the whole incident was widely publicized around the world, but I guess there are those who left out of the loop.



What was the data tellilng him? The oraft was not a man-made aircraft. The Air Force also noted that the craft exceeded the speed of sound and not left behind a sonic boom, which is another indication why that craft was not ours and why I posted references to AIM/FAR, Part 91, 817, and Appendix B, in order to prove my point that the craft was not that of mankind because of the advanced technology involved, in other words, mankind had yet to solve the riddle of the sonic boom and there was the proof that someone had done just that.

How many aircraft do we have that are larger than ships. The data evidence sent to Washington D.C. confirmed the pilot's accounts and radar tracks indicated that there were maneuvering around the aircraft and that one was quite large.



But, there was radar data that confirmed the presence of the objects around the aircraft. The skeptics first claimed that they were Mars and jupiter, and then found they were wrong, so they used ice clouds as an explanation without checking the weather condition for that night.

A clear example of what I have been asserting about skeptics who don't do their homework.

When some skeptics can't refute the facts, they make up things to try and debunk that, which is already history!
A case of not doing their homework to know the rest of the story.

Patheitic??? I find it amusing!!

Stella was unaware that ground-based witnesses watch the whole encounter and he said that no none saw the UFO! Hmmm!!!

And, it was dark that night and if Stella were a pilot, he should have known that ground-base lighting would have made it very, very difficult to spot any object between his aircraft and the ground, especially since the craft was not exhibiting an international arrangement of navigational lights, much less strobe lights.

Goes to show that some skeptics fall short of knowledge on the issues at hand and it just goes to prove my claims that some skeptics just don't believe in doing homework!

And, the data was NOT indicative of any plasma display, which is why the European skeptics went with stealth and secret aircraft as explanation, so it seems they understood that the data didn't exhibit natural phenomena either based on what the data depicted.

Exactly what maneuvers did it perform that can not be performed by plasma?


First of all, they don't react to radar lock-ons nor trail aricraft around for long distances nor were the maneuvers indicative of plasma nor was plasma reported by ground-base witnesses. . That is why the Air Force indicated in its report that the craft exhibited intelligence in its maneuvers but if you had done your homework would have know what the Air Force was saying about that craft, but unfotunately, you didn't and I became aware of that fact.

[

The plot thickens!!!



The MoD, the same bunch of folks who got caught trying to debunk the Rendlesham incident and claimed that an Air Force memo didn't exist and later, release the document it said, didn't exist.

Here's some of the reaction to the plasma theory of the skeptics put forth by the MoD.

• American Chronicle calls it "the new swamp gas".
• Even Kyle King is skeptical.

The only thing that is pathetic, is the continual denials, when all the evidence available, says something else. The F16s were scrambled in response to both Radar tracking and visual reports...

The appearance over Eupen had no corroborative Radar data to support them. Objects were seen by two vehicle patrol officers and by an officer in a local Gendarmerie. A couple of days later another object was sighted by, amongst others, another gendarme who made an official report. Concurrent with this happening the Radar defence network was showing an unknown object on their scope. As a result, F16s were scrambled to check the object out. The pilots, in their own words, described the incident as if they were being toyed with by the object as it would allow them to lock on then vanish again.


I think it's a pretty safe hypothesis, to conclude that. This incident was yet another in along line of incidents where something, or someone, seems to take amusement from flouting their ability to be "Just that one step ahead" of our technology that goes back to. "The mystery aircraft" flying in conditions no other contemporary aircraft could in the 1930s and the "airship flap" of the late 19th century.

Given the reports from the ground described a triangular shaped craft. I don't think it is making any great leap to assume that the Radar contact was one and the same. Given that, what we do know, is this. The only made made aircraft that looks like that is the Stealth fighter, a sub sonic craft. The Radar blip hit over 1000MPH . Conclusion, the triangular craft were not Stealth fighters.

What is truly fascinating to those who actually understand the UFO phenomenon in depth, is this. That this particular "show" was in Belgium. It is as if it was picked specifically because the Belgian armed forces.gendarmerie and government were deemed to be More *open* then those of virtually any other NATO nation. That is, by putting on a show over Belgium, the case would be reported in a far more candid nature.

In this case. The Plasma explanation is about as credible as. Finding someone standing over a murder victim with the knife in their hand saying "I told you you'd pay for that one day and I'd be the one you answered to" and then blaming the murder on the tooth fairy.

Reality time for the skeptics!!

I told them why plasma wasn't, and couldn't have been responsible for any of the UFO case files on record and they wouldn't listen any more than the skeptics who didn't listen to me when I told them that no weather balloon ware responsible for the Roswell incident and now, it's time to say it all over again!!

****I TOLD YOU SO!!****


Apparently, the skeptics swallowed the plasma thing without knowing that the MoD's name is in there somewhere and we know the history of the MoD! The same folks who got caught trying to cover-up the Rendlesham UFO incident.

Is it any wonder as to why other skeptics didn't take PLASMA thing seriously either??? But then again, there are skeptics who didn't know the rest of the story.while pushing plasma issue, which is now painted as the new "swamp gas."

The skeptics really blew it this time and it is their own fault, and now, I will record this episode and bring it up from time to time to prove my point that some skeptics didn't do their homework and got really sloppy on the plasma issue and they did it in front of the wrong person!

Now, it's ****SHOW TIME!!****







Hazzard,

As an aviator, you should have known that there was no way that plasma could have been responsible for any of he UFO case files in quesiton and that the plasma issue was false and moot to begin with from an aviators standpoint and I sat here for days as an aviator waitig for you to come clean on that fact, which never came to light.

The whole point of all of this, there were some skeptics here who got very sloppy on the plasma issue and now, it has been duly noted!

I vote Skyeagle for US president.

Yes, you have said that over and over again without any substantiation whatsoever. I can keep repeating that Santa Claus is real and lives on the North Pole, but that doesn't make it true either.



Yes, you did and you are still wrong no matter how red, big and bolded you make your letters.

QUOTE

Apparently, the skeptics swallowed the plasma thing without knowing that the MoD's name is in there somewhere and we know the history of the MoD! The same folks who got caught trying to cover-up the Rendlesham UFO incident.

It is not something one swallows, it is something one accepts based on plain physics, which you obviously have no grasp of. And I thinik evangium did a very good job at putting the Rendlesham incident in question.

QUOTE

Is it any wonder as to why other skeptics didn't take PLASMA thing seriously either??? But then again, there are skeptics who didn't know the rest of the story.while pushing plasma issue, which is now painted as the new "swamp gas."

Sigh. You have no idea what you are talking about.

QUOTE

The skeptics really blew it this time and it is their own fault, and now, I will record this episode and bring it up from time to time to prove my point that some skeptics didn't do their homework and got really sloppy on the plasma issue and they did it in front of the wrong person!

It was very obvious it was in front of the wrong person, as said person had no grasp of the issue at hand and the underlying physics. Like trying to teach a door Braille.

QUOTE

Now, it's ****SHOW TIME!!****

OK. I got my popcorn

QUOTE

UFOs: PLASMA, THE NEW SWAMP GAS

Sunday, March 16, 2008-"Swamp Gas" being of course the infamous explanation for UFOs seen in the skies back in the day. This is a piece I wrote for American Chronicle in 2006, and thought it’d be interesting to repost it here.

Apparently they just couldn't resist.

Scientists at the Defence Intelligence Staff, part of the Ministry of Defence, reportedly described how glowing "plasmas" of gas were created by charges of electricity. Air flows then sculpted the plasmas into aerodynamic shapes which appeared to fly at extraordinary speeds through the sky.I am of the opinion that the people writing these things for their various intel agencies are snorting milk out their noses as they come up with these ideas. They go on:

As a result, people who thought they'd seen a UFO were instead suffering from "extended memory retention and repeat experiences" induced by the plasmas.

No comment. None needed.

It's dazzling to see how quickly this official explanation has made its way to the news feeds. If you can't smell Big Bad Debunker in all this, it's because, as the saying goes, you haven't been paying attention.

UFO Updates. Anyone who sincerely swallows this explanation for UFOs -- that it's plasma -- is simply naive, stubborn, or both. And if both, that?s a dangerous combination.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2008/plasmanewswampgas.html

Sigh. This sentence says it all: "I am of the opinion that the people writing these things for their various intel agencies are snorting milk out their noses as they come up with these ideas.". Obviously the poor fellow only has his opinion to go with it, otherwise I am sure he would have substantiated what he said.

And, "It's dazzling to see how quickly this official explanation has made its way to the news feeds", weird since scientists have known this phenomena for quite a while.

QUOTE

Hazzard,

As an aviator, you should have known that there was no way that plasma could have been responsible for any of he UFO case files in quesiton and that the plasma issue was false and moot to begin with from an aviators standpoint and I sat here for days as an aviator waitig for you to come clean on that fact, which never came to light.

The whole point of all of this, there were some skeptics here who got very sloppy on the plasma issue and now, it has been duly noted!

As an aviator Hazzard knows when to look at the science and realize that this is not a common phenomenon and could definitely be the cause of a lot of the sightings. Your insistance upon the opposite with only feeble attempts of substantiation makes you look more like a pig farmer than an aviator. Quite honestly, I have not seen anything from you that even hints at you being an aviator - only movie jargon and that doesn't really make it, does it?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi Reb,

Actually, the story is a lot more benign. He indeed started out as a skeptic, but was intrigued by the data that was available and even harassed the scientific community for not tking a greater interest. But as the years passed by and he sifted through the material that he had gotten delivered, he basically concluded that ET wasn't in that data and we should look at explanations closer to Earth. So you can say he went from being a skeptic to a very intrigued person back to a skeptic.

Not really much more to it, in my honest opinion.

Cheers,
Badeskov

No, evangium didn't understand this and he actually made that very clear in his first post. But that you haven't got the foggiest idea either is very obvious from your evasive discussion tactics

Cheers,
Badeskov

No, he hasn't as you have yet to put a single detail out for us to see as to why it is impossible for a plasma to do what we ascribe to it.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Could you please provide a link when you quote?! You have an uncanny ability to cherrypick your quotes and blatantly place them out of context. This has been seen numerous times, even just on the last 10 pages or so.

Cheers,
Badeskov

So you say, and as yet you have shown nothing as to why this is.



And this is plain out wrong and shows how far detached you actually are from what you are talking about. Plasmas are actually a huge research area. Which obviously had eluded you.



By all means of respect, but you have no idea what a plasma is and how it behaves, which has been very obvious from your replies, so I think we can let that rest.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Lilly, I completely agree. Actually, we don't even know if plasma is the cause of the sightings in any of the cases at hand. The issue at hand is that in many cases we can't rule it out either, so we have multiple possible explanations and can thus not make a qualified conclusion based on the data at hand

Cheers,
Badeskov

Actually no. Sure, there were tringualr craft spotted, but not in conjuction with the radar data. There the lights were said to move independently! I am just quoting from where I was pointed to.



So?! That doesn't make it intelligent.



And a plasma can do exactly that.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Sky, I quoted directly from the link you supplied us, which allegedly was the best description of the events at hand. I.e., directly from the horse's mouth. And that is what they said.



From your linked text, Sky. But if I can't trust that link, which link can I then trust from you?! Do you even read what you link to?!



See, it is odd how things inflate, isn't it? Especially from your original linked reports.

Cheers,
Badeskov

So, Sky, it all boils down to these three questions if we want to decide whether plasma phenomena could have been a cause of the peculiar radar tracks recorded:

1) Do reflective plasmas exist?
2) Can a reflective plasma act as a metallic object with respect to radar?
3) How does an F-16 radar filter out a radar return from a fast moving, metallic object?

That is really it, no more, no less. Can you answer those rather simple question and back up your answers with technical data?

This is as simple as it gets, this is the crux of the matter with respect to the Belgian radar data.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Cool. It's another attack of the GIANT RED FONT!!!

Foolish earthlings, one day you'll create a font so big and red, it will destroy you all. Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

And again Badeskov puts forward yet another inconvienent truth- that ET can be no more proven than any other reasonable explanation...

Sky- I'm starting to see that anyone hitching the horse to your cart might as well side with Corso, since you both initially appear to possess the neccesary qualifications, but on closer examination you both show some surprsing ignorance about things that should fall within the scope of your knowledge

Oh yeah, there are most certainly instances with multiple possible explanations, and definitive/qualified conclusions continue to elude researchers. I have no problem with folks supporting their favorite hypothesis, but we need to keep in mind that (as of now anyway) no one hypothesis has been supported to the level of "proof" by any means. To think otherwise is to utilize the element of faith in one's conclusion. In other words, belief verses knowing.

[quote name='Evangium' post='2263349' date='Apr 24 2008, 08:06 AM']Foolish earthlings, one day you'll create a font so big and red, it will destroy you all. Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

And again Badeskov puts forward yet another inconvienent truth- that ET can be no more proven than any other reasonable explanation..[p/quote]

I have heard that before from skeptics who lack the ability to decern what is, and what isn't, and the plasma thing is another clear example. In addition, they have failed to understand and figure out why highly experienced experts, from comericial and airline pilots, to military and intelligence officials who have stated that some UFOs are actually those of ET. In fact, they were unaware that the Air Force had already determined that some UFOs were "interplanetary spaceships" decades ago, while handing out a different story to the public.

I was surprised to get arguments from the skeptics who stood by the Air Force when it said that that test dummies and accident victims of the 1950's were responsible for an incident in 1947. Simple common sense logic should have told them that there was something wrong with the Air Force's statement, but as it was, they lacked the ability to see the light and the rest became history when the facts were eventually revealed when the head of the project had said that there was no way that his test dummies could have been responsible for what the Air Force claimed in public, but certain skeptics had already swallowed the Air Force's obvious false public announcement wihtout knowing the rest of the story, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to determine the Air Force was pushing a false story, just plain common sense.

I was giving out hints that the skeptics didn't know what they were talking about by posting that all they were doing was similar to copying Japanese language figures without understanding what those figures represented and they couldn't even figure out what the hint meant!!!

I told them why plasma was not responsible and it was all very simple and they couldn't even figure out why it was impossible for plasma to have been responsible for any of the UFO case files in question, which is proof that they don't have what it takes to debate the UFO issue.

Actually, I have and the proof was in the fact that you were unaware that a triangular-shaped craft was described by ground-based witnesses and you were also unaware that the data didn't reflect the charateristics of plasma, which is why I posted the thing about Japanese language characters

QUOTE

It is not something one swallows, it is something one accepts based on plain physics,...

Tnen, why were you and other skeptics still pushing plasma thing when the facts said otherwise???



It seems that you were unaware of the MoD's history, and as stated, the plasma thing is just nothing but the new "swamp gas" and the skeptics took the bait!



As an aviator, Hazzard should have stepped forward a long time ago to prove my point because scientific logic should have told him that there was no way that plasma could have been responsible for the UFO case files that have been presented here.

So here is a clear example where the new "swamp gas" explanation took on a form of plasma and some skeptics feel into the trap!

evangium didn't understand other things either, but he thought he did despite facts to the contrary. An example is where I had to post a map and a photo to prove my point.

LINK

Headquarters-Belguim

"Headquarters determined to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations for the radar images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions."

Interviewer: "Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk?"

"No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numer ous changes in direction, and the atmosphereic conditions that prevailed pre cluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."

________________________________________________________________________________

In any event, it was out of the question for the F-16 to catch up with the object at this low altitude, where the density of the air limits the speed to 1,300 KPH. Above that speed, the temperature in the compressors of the jet turbines would cause the engines to burst," said Col. DeBrouwer. "There was a logic behind the motions of the object."

Everything indicates that this object was intelligently directed to escape from the pursuing planes.

It exist, but it had nothing to do with any of the UFO case files that have been presented. Read the reports!



Yes, and so can buildings, ships, automobiles, aircraft, towers, windmills, balloons with radar reflectors, etc, but as in the UFO case files in question, none, including plasma, were responsible for those incidents. Read the reports.



In STT mode, other objects are filtered out from the scope and on the HUD.



Yes, but I just made it simple.

It exist, but it had nothing to do with any of the UFO case files that have been presented. Read the reports!



Yes, and so can buildings, ships, automobiles, aircraft, towers, windmills, balloons with radar reflectors, etc, but as in the UFO case files in question, none, including plasma, were responsible for those incidents. Read the reports.



In STT mode, other objects are filtered out from the scope and on the HUD.



Yes, but I just made it simple, so just admit that you and the other skeptisc fell for that old trick, plasma, which is now known as the "new swamp gas."

Weren't you even aware that the plasma report was highly flawed??? And, you used references from a flawed report tto support your case. Hmmmm.

SELECTED


In a February, 2000 confidential memo titled "Selected

Discussions with Key United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) Intelligence Personnel on the Subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI)" prepared for this reporter, Miller spelled out the details of meetings between 1989 and 2000 with named high level Department of Defense intelligence personnel - including the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), an Admiral on the Joint Staff, and the U.S. Atlantic Command Director for Intelligence - among others. Miller says he initiated briefings "to provide the flag officers with information to help the military decision-making processes when these unexplained craft are encountered by members of the Department of Defense."

"...Declassified government documents show that unexplained objects with extraordinary technical capabilities pose challenges to military activity around the globe. U.S. fighter jets have been scrambled to pursue UFOs, according to North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) logs and U.S. Air Force documents. Peruvian and Iranian Air Force planes attempted to shoot down unexplained objects during air encounters, and Belgium F-16's equipped with automatically guided missiles pursued UFO's in 1990."

http://www.ecologynews.com/cometa.html

Quote me where I said that.

And you still didnt answer my question. What does a plasma radar return have different from an aircraft radar return?



What about the data made it not indicative of plasma?



React? On the contrary! Plasma does react to radar lock ons! Ever hear of compton scattering? Maybe you should do your homework then! When an EM wave collides with an electron, it will give the electrons momentum (thus changing their speed/direction)! Thats white a reaction... and especially when you switch to STT mode, because at that point, the radar system is focusing all of its energy on the one target. What will this look like to the pilot? Well, it will look like all of a sudden the target "reacted" to the pilot locking onto it.



Wait... who was chasing who, you're suggesting?



What about its maneuvers wasnt?



And just how would they know what plasma looks like?

Amazing!!, I remember hearing the bariloche news when I was a kid. I lived in bariloche during my childhood untill I was 11 years old. One night driving back to the city with my grandmother, we spoted an unidentified object hovering over a distant mountain. We both could see it clearly, it was a hovering object with several redish circular lights around it. My grandma was a total skeptic about the UFO phenomenon and I was just a 8 years old kid who never put much thought into these issues. But we both we amazed by what we saw and never forgot about it.

A few weeks ago I came to know that my uncle, also in bariloche, spoted a ufo just 200 meter above the ground and some 100 meters from his car. He said he was traveling during the night through some mountain road ( very frequent in bariloche ) and he spoted a light near his car, then the light moved quickly away from him and dissapeared into the sky. Really hard stuff to believe but again, you should meet my uncle, he is pretty much like my grandma.

Now I googled bariloche ufo and lots of stuff came up, and even some ufo sightings on the surrounding cities too. You should know that the whole area of bariloche and the neighbouring places are pretty much scarcely inhabited and filled with forests and lakes. There´s also a quite big atomic plant working in there. Lots of people would talk about sightings in bariloche back when I lived there.

Of course I can only talk of what I saw, and by no means I´m implying that I saw an extraterrestrial ship. I´m just saying I saw a flying object which was clearly not a plane, helicopter or any known to the masses type of human flying artifact. Whatever it was I don´t know, but I just seemed to have found bariloche is a hot spot for these sightings.

Funny thing you knew about this....

Intelligently controlled references to maneuvers on the radar scope, unlike plasma. As the Air Force mentioned, there was intelligence behind the maneuvers, which was clearly evidenct in the data.

You're avoiding my question... is it causing you to feel uneasy?



No... you told them it wasnt, not why it wasnt. There's a big difference there!



Ahh, so the object does "react" every time they lock onto it... interesting...

I first read about this incident in Bariloche in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Changing your story now, hmm? For 20 pages it was "NO! NOOO! " and now its "Yes, but..."?

I explained in detail before and as noted, plasma played no role in any of the UFO case files in question, and was not evident in the data since the object was found to be an intelligently controlled craft, hence, the irrevelance of plasma.

I might add that UFO debunker, Phil Klass, also brought up the phenomenon years ago, and the fact that he wasn't taken serious then for obvious reasons since plasma didn't fit in with the UFO case files in question, which, was evident and that was yet another clue because those case files remain unexplained to this very day and that is a hint that has been screaming out for years.

What it is, is that some skeptics are too involved in trying to find ways to debunk that, which is already history, that they can't bring it upon themselves to fact the facts.

Yeah I googled it and that article came up. I was living there at the time so I remember seeing that in the news but I didn´t pay much attention to it. Bariloche is a small town in a country which not many people even know of. I believe people interested in ufo phenomena should definitely visit bariloche and do some research.

Thanks!!

Eventually, I will make it down there.

Oh definitely, I would recommend it. Even if you don´t get to see anything out of the ordinary, the place itself is unbelievable. You could walk around some amazing nature there, and there´s a certain mystic to the place.

i can't go through 130 pages to see if it's been mentioned already ... but isn't the crafts flying over Washington DC incident and Truman's subsequent remarks in 1952 the best evidence for alien visitors?

Yes, because they are all part of the overall puzzle.

As Truman said, given that they (UFOs) exist, they are not ours. Since then, it has already been proven they do exist, but then again, the Air Force said that back in 1948 and reiterated that fact in a report in 1952.

You and I both know that you are not going to agree with anyone here, unless they support your claim of ET. As far as providing evidence of alien visitors your asking the wrong guy... Im in no way going to do that for you, I cant, I havent found any.

Badeskov was simply showing us that there are other possible explanations, like plasma, out there, then the ETH, like I was with the "it could be time traveling terrestrials"... Im not saying that a specific UFO sighting is either...but I am saying that you cant dismiss them both...

And if there is any doubt, any doubt at all, of the origin of a UFO, well then, all of a sudden, you are not 100% sure it is extraterrestrials.

I think, that Badeskov, Hazzard and others on this thread are the only ones on this thread that are talking sense! What have you seriously provided skyeagle, apart from fuzzy old documents, that would crumble by a stiff breeze, as well as refutable evidence that you provided such as news reports, eye witness accounts and dodgey government files. I think, that now skyeagle will come up with some strange article, that suggests everything he stands for. His evidence supports his claims and he bends peoples words so that he can make it sound as if he is right. I really am in anticipation at the moment, to see what next piece of rubbish evidence comes on to my computer screen.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN


(P.S Sorry I haven't been on for a bit, I haven't had chance because of my job in the RAF. Thanks a lot!)

Nope! I said that the data didn't depict plasma on the scope and that was clearly evident.

Even a football helmet canl show up on radar, but it doesn't maneuver around and then, trail the aircraft for over 700 miles either, so what is the point? Some encounters lasted for well over an hour, so is it any wonder why highly experienced aircrews blamed ET as the B-52 aircrew after encountering a UFO around the Minot AFB area had done on camera durng their one of their interviews?




A B-52 Stratofortress taxis during an alert exercise at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., Monday, March 6, 2006. Alert generation exercises are held to ensure the base can respond rapidly to national objectives.

Face up to the fact that plasma is now known as the "new swamp gas" explanation and it is actually old news since it was brought up many years ago.

Face up to the fact that the skepics have found themselves once again,, on the wrong side of the fence and as a pilot, you should have known that plasma could not have been responsible for any of the UFO case files I had presented, so what is up with that???

Youre still avoiding my question... Why?



What about the data distinguishes it from plasma?

And yes you did change your story. At first you said plasma was filtered out by the radar and didnt appear on the scope, now you're saying it does appear... Shall I quote your two versions?

Why did you chose to ignore the rest of my post?

Lets try that again shall we...



Clear, yes?

And if there is any doubt, any doubt at all, of the origin of a UFO, well then, all of a sudden, you are not 100% sure it is extraterrestrials.

Early skyeagle:



Later skyeagle:



Why the change in claims? At first, you claimed plasma was identified based on its different radar return (indicative of natural phenomena) and now you claim it reflects radar just like aircrafts...

No corruption and collusion in THAT country?

Suppose the airport lights went out, by accident. It nearly causes a plane crash. Those in charge enlist a cover-up, with a UNIDENTIFIED FLYING LIGHT story!

Sorry, I'll take my business elsewhere, thank you!

Yeah well argentina might be corrupt but that conjecture is a bit far off don't you think?