It still doesn't matter and the proof lies in the fact that despite new developements, the UFO case files remain unexplained to this very day. Besides, what the aircrews reported, were descriptions of artificial machines, and nothing to do with natural phenomena.

Actually, the numbers support ET visitation.

For an example, of the thousands and thousands of aerial encounters that involved artificial flying machines, those cases remain unexplained to this very day because mankind didn't have such machines in his possession at the time those reports were made.

Exactly, they are unexplained and remain so!



Eye of the beholder. Sorry, but we can't really rely on that.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Nope.



Emphasis mine. You are leaping to unsustainable conclusions. You conclude something (completely untenable) and then you base another conclusion on that. Sorry, doesn't work.

Cheers,
Badeskov

To sum that up, I understand the nature of what the data evidence represents than most scientist in the world, and so do many of my fellow pilots around the world whose UFO reports have been recorded.

Also, it is evident you don't understand the nature of the data evidence and the scientific community. For an example, who do you think the scientific community is going to rely on for support of their investigations? The very people whose UFO reports would be the focus of their investigations. In other words, the scientific community are going to depend on the experience and expertise of radar operators, commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, meteorologist, and other military personnel.

Without the support of such people, the scientific community is basically helpless.

Let's just say that my experience says you are wrong and you can back into history over the years where new developments proved me right.

Obviously I disagree since you leap to unfounded conclusions.



I think Haz has a very good understanding.



You have to be joking!!! Are you seriously thinking that scientists are not able to perform such studies by themselves, scientists that design and improve radar systems, derive meteological models and so on? That they have to rely on mere operators of said systems? That honestly displays an astounding lack of knowledge of how science works.



Nonsense. I do research in fiber optic communications, do you think I solicit help from the cable guy? No, I design the systems that the cable guy is taught to put in and if he runs into a problem or an unknown scenario, he asks for help higher up.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos

By all means of respect, your experience doesn't count and if you can't show anything substantial, you have nothing.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Shouldn't be, since I have posted verifiable information, which in many cases, are available under the FOIA.



I know he doesn't. If he did, he would have found that in one very famous scientific investigation, up to 1/3 of the scientific study's UFO case files couldn't produce any earthly explanations. In fact, it even wrote; "possible genuine" in regards to the Lakenheath UFO incident, and that coming from a scientific group whose leader was highy bias toward the UFO enigma.

So, here is where a group of scientist and others got their heads together to investigate the UFO enigma and still couldn't explain up to 1/3 of its UFO case files, which remains unexplained to this very day.



Some the folks who came on the side of UFO reality, were meterologist. In fact, a meteorological study had proven that the UFOs over Washington D.C. were NOT the result of atmospheric phenomena and in 1969, another scientific study concurred, and the incidents remain unexplained to this very day, which is a hint that even today, nothing can explain away what took place in 1952.

On the contrary, experience is what sets it all apart from those who are not familiar with what certain evidence depicts.

That is why some unknowledgable skeptics tend to dismiss evidence that any highly experienced military and commercial pilot or even radar operators would accept as factual.

Verifiable, but that information does in no way support ET as the explanation.




Yes, unexplained. Not a certain ET conclusion.



No no no. You cannot quote a report from 1969 when newer studies clearly show that atmosperic events can indeed do exactly the same as the UFOs you claim is ET. It is not a valid argument.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Well, obviously your experience is lacking, since from you have shown you grossly misinterpretate said evidence and cherry pick data, avoiding that which goes against you.



Factual; and wrongly interpretated...no wonder it is dismissed.

Cheers,
Badeskov

It does since the reports consisted of saucer-shaped flying vehicles exceeding the speed of sound without the creation of sonic booms. Obtain the Aeronautical Information Manual and Federal Aviation Regulations book and reference Part 91, 817, and Appendix B, sections 1, 2, and 3.

It will show that mankind is not there yet in regards to supersonic flight without the production of sonic booms, yet UFOs can do so, and do it on a regular basis. That is yet another clue.



Those case files remain unexplained because those scientist had determined during the course of their investigations, there were no earthly explanations for those flying vehicles, and they still can't find any earthly explanations, even today!




Why can't I quote from the Air Force's scientific report from 1969?? After all, those UFO case files were unexplained then, and remain unexplained to this very day despite the new developements, and even more so, I might add.

Since the data is straight-to-the-point, why change it? After all, the facts have proved me right before!

Indeed, the data is straight to the point, I just don't agree with your interpretation. And since others don't either, you haven't really shown anything and the data certainly haven't proven you to be correct.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I do, because I am familiar with what the data depicts.



Now, that's funny considering that it were the pilots and military officials who've verified the data evidence given, including a professor who is an expert in radar technology who invoked the ETH, so I don't know where you got your idea from!

The skeptics disagreed because they were not knowledgable enough to understand what the data depicted, and other skeptics had a hidden agenda to try and debunk the data evidence, but they didn't know any better either.

Skeptics have disagreed with me on other issues as well, but in the end, they soon found that they were the folks who were on the wrong side of the fence. Should I post some past examples to make my point very clear?

Please be careful what you say, because someone may correct you.

I know I said I was finished with this thread, but is it Tim Printy (and by defacto Pflock and CSIcop)?
So really, you just corrected Printy, who acknowledges that he misquoted Pflock, by not reading the passage as carefully as he should . At least (as others have to keep reminding you) Printy was man enough to admit that he'd posted erroronous information on his webpage.
Should I start crowing that I corrected you, since comments you made in the other thread indicate that, until I posted a links to certain documents, you thought Printy, Pflock and Klass were quoting 3rd hand (and possibly incorrect) information about Col. McCoy and that you also assumed that McCoy had never recovered a flying saucer? In that case, I'm willing to accept that your sources might have steered wrong...

Pflock got it wrong in the first place, and Tim just made things worst. Tim also claims that a lighthouse was responsible for the UFO Rendlesham incidents. That makes it very clear that Tim is not on the same level as reality. You can't see the lighthouse from the base and it doesn't explain the UFOs in the sky either. In fact, I made it known to Tim that the lighthouse has a backshield between the lighthouse lighting unit and the base itself.

Pflock should have done some researched into high-altitude operations of the Air Force's C-54 before trying to debunk the testimony of one of the crewmembers.

Apparently, Tim is out of touch with realilty and common sense, and the C-54/Kirtland AFB and Pflock fiasco underlines my point.




Have you even read any of the articles written by Klass, Pflock, and Tim on UFOs over the years??? It is obvious they are not on the same level as common sense in some repects, especially the Roswell incident and McCoy wouldn't have had access to every classified project at WPAFB.

Good posting B. But I think your logic is lost on Skyeagle. He so want this to be real. Its like debating the existance of God with a religious fanatic.

Yes, I think we all would like to see what you consider a victory over a skeptic.

Now, that's funny considering that the folks who verified the data I posted, were military officials and aircrews!

Goes to show that he was out of touch with reality, but then again, that is generally the case of skeptics who have a hidden agenda to debunk UFOs at all cost, and you know, I do keep records and can go back and post examples to make my point.

I don't really look at it that way. Just look at it as teaching some lessons, but if you insist, here is one example.

I think you know why Tim made that correction, which is written in red.

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/crews.html



And, then there was the debate over the weather balloon in regards to the Roswell incident. I said that no weather balloon was involved and the skeptics claimed their so-called "undeniable evidence' proved my wrong.

Well, in 1994, the Air Force admitted that no weather balloon was involved after all. Close-closed on the skeptic's claim that based on their "undeniable evidence" it was a weather balloon.

Then, the skeptics claimed that a Project Mogul balloon flight #4 was reponsible, but records show that no such flight took place. If the skeptics had done their homework, they would have found that out, and that the stipulation between the balloon teams was that no Mogul balloons be launched on cloudy days.

Tim Printy claimed that a lighthouse was reponsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents, but what Tim failed to note was that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base and that the lighthouse has a backshield between it and the base.

A former lighthouse supporter went to the Rendlesham area and found to his dismay, that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base and that is why he is a former lighthous supporter, which is just another strike against Tim, and I sent him a note letting him know about that backshield.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, of course, there was "Access-Denied' who was also taught a lesson by me.



Now, I could add the debate between the UFO skeptics and the discovery of the gorilla, which they came on the short end of the stick when I posted references to their own encyclopedias and from universities.

I could go on in regards to the JAL/UFO enounter where the skeptics claimed that planets and ice clouds were responsible and the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter as well. In addition to the Washington UFO incidents of 1952 where skeptics claimed that temperature inversion was responsible, not knowing that scientific investigations had excluded temperature inversion as responsible.

Then, a skepic claimed that the Rendlesham UFO incidents were caused by the planet Jupiter, which was found to be false. Another skeptic claimed that a battered police car was responsible without knowing that the person he cites, had already admitted that he wasn't responsible and I made it known to the both of them.

The list goes on and on, but I hope by now, you've got the point!

A quick question. Why do you seem to need ufo's to be real? If they never come down to have real interaction, then what purpose do they serve? Reports, radar, etc. Without physical proof or beings coming to talk to us, you will never know for sure if they are real. You can hope they are, but thats all. I admire your enthusiasm, but what makes you so consumed with topic. This is not meant to be a jab. I am just curious.

Oh, I thought you were teaching a skeptic something about aliens..Do you have any of those?

Hidden agendas and keeping records. You sound a little paranoid Sky. Like Eric raven said, you seem consumed with this topic....Maybe you need a vacation.

Because they are real. After all, the Air Force admitted back in the 1940's that they were real. I've seen a UFO and there was no question that it was real.



Simply observations and something else, and that in regards to our nuclear weaponry assets and faciities.



Actually, radar data is a form of physical evidence that has been used by the NTSB and the FAA in their investigations and physical evidence has been collected at UFO landing sites that cannot be duplicated in the field nor in the labs.

Yes, the data of UFOs piloted by ET.

I would say that! After all, you only have to read their post to see where they are coming from.

For an example, they had said that inidents such as this, was caused by earthquake lights or some other unknown phenomena, but apparently, that is not this B-52 aircrew were describing.




It is fairly obvious they are not describing a weather balloon or 'earthquake lights.'

For physical evidence, I am talking about a craft or body in our possesion. Until we have that, then no one can say they are real 100%.

Funny that you mentioned that! I will be driving to Texas a week from now.

Texas is great! Enjoy.

I can!

Besides, physical evidence taken from landing sites remain unexplained to this very day because there are no earthly explanations for what was found.

On another note, we don't have physical evidence on the existence of the so-called "Aurora" nor did we have any physical evidence on the existence of "Have Blue," the F-117, the A-12 Oxcart, the U-2, the B-2 bomber when they were first built and flying test flights in the absence of such physical evidence, but we now find they are very much a reality.

In other words, physical evidence on hand is nice to have, but not required, otherwise, there will be those who will demand direct physical evidence on objects that we haven't seen with our own eyes, but we know exist.

No more out of touch with reality and common sense than some of those in your camp. I'm sure you're aware that over the years as many believers have been caught out by their own sloppy research, flawed investigative and interview techniques (esp. Hypnotic regression) or simply been caught outrightly lying.
These days, I have more of a preference for sources (like Project 1947) where all the data is presented, as opposed to those who disregard anything which allows the shadow of reasonable doubt (legal standard) to fall on their argument.

Now in regard to the rest of your comments on skeptics after this one-
It seems that the only person you've directly corrected is Tim Printy. The existence of the gorilla, the flat earth et all, have been brought up by plenty of others in the past (and I dare say some of them were catch-cry's long before you were born). Yours wasn't the only voice in the Rendleshem anti-debunking argument.
As for debris, I thought we'd covered that in Roswell- that the evidence for an ETV, in human possession, is inconclusive at best, and it's existence is highly dependent on selective reasoning that disregards any evidence to the contrary. Evaluating evidence, then debunking it solely because it doesn't fit with the outcome you want is sloppy.
Tends to cast doubts over any further study into the phenomena (as happened in the case of one ESP researcher who proved it's existence by disegarding all scores that were too low)

Well, you know the old saying! "If the shoe fits."

Well, there have been times I have disagreed with believers as well.

For instance, when they were still talking of Charles Moore's false Mogul balloon #4 flight data, I was already saying that it was moot by the fact there was never a Project Mogul balloon flight #4 in the first place! In fact, I even disagreed with Stanton Friedman over the MJ-12 documents.

To further add, I have disagreed with the Federation of American Scientist (FAS) over the performance figures for the Air Force's F-15 Eagle, and as a result, they made their correction after I sent them a notice of their mistake.

In addition, I have stated time and again that I am skeptical of UFO reports until I have had the time to go over the details of those reports, and I do go to great lengths to ascertain what I need to know in some cases.



Read above who else I have corrected. Not to mention the skeptics who've challenged me on the Roswell weather balloon prior to the Air Force's 1994 Roswell reprot, and those same skeptics who challenged me on the discovery of the gorilla. All they had to do was to open their encyclopedias, but because I was a believer, their closed-minds blinded them to reality, so they challenged me, and as a result, I let the challenge continue for days before I slammed them with the references that eventually shutdown the argument in mid-stream.



I am glad you brought up the 'flat earth' thing, because with all of the evidence available, there are still those who are claiming the world is flat despite the evidence to the contrary, which brings up the UFOs!

With all of the evidence available, there are still those who dismiss the evidence that they are intelligently controlled vehicles exhibiting advanced technology that is not found in our closet.

So as in the case above, you have skeptics who've dismiss the evidence that the earth is round just as they dismiss the evidence that the UFOs are not ours.

Of course not, but then again, there are events made available to me that are not available on the internet in regards to the Rendlesham UFO incidents.



It goes far beyond that! The military would never have concocted such a story if not true, especially after considering the nature of the world's only nuclear-capable bomber group in the area. If ithe object was truly a classified project of the military, the military wouldn't have said anything to anyone without a security clearance, much less tell the whole world! The name of the game in that respect is to not tell anyone if they do not have the "need-to-know." But, as it was, the military was unaware of the crash at that time.

It is not like the military to leave their classified projects lying around for days; waiting for someone to tell them to come get their classified project out of their front yard.

BASICALLY IT ALL COMES DOWN TO.

countless boring arguing that'll get us nowhere until we actually get ET's to come in contact with us world wide.

So stop taking everything so seirously folks.

Thanks!

I will be in Texas for a few months and plan to visit my old Air Force basic training base in Amarillo that is now closed. I was in a small group that didn't go to Lackland AFB for basic training.

Be sure to visit DYESS AFB, near Abilene, my first SAC base BEFORE it was officially open. I took my basic training in Sep. '55 at Sampson Air Force Base, located on the eastern shore of Lake Seneca in the Finger Lakes region of New York.

And you wonder why people lose patience with you at times... Remember a discussion we had earlier on these forums about you creating the illusion of assuming everyone's an a**hole, and needs to treated as such?


Skimming for a debunking point were we? The actual context of my intial comment was that you weren't the first debunker to bring up those points as proof of scientific thinking getting it wrong. Not how people, in the face of evidence, still choose what they want to believe.

Texas has a lot of bases that I want to visit, including what is left of Kelly AFB where the giant XC-99 was last seen. Talk about a "mothership!!"




http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAirc...sWings/XC99.htm

I should add that scientific investigations have verified many of the UFO case files on record.

And there we get to the crux. Artificial allies, obsessive record keeping, compulsion to collect data in support to maintain a fantasy. There is more to this statement than we can imagine. A hypothesis I made earlier in the week is proving out. I wanted to post it, but I couldn't word it without it sounding a bit too hard-edged, and I certainly don't want to do that. I would give an educated guess that this event had a profound, chilling effect on sky's career, and caused much emotional and psychological distress that still has not been reconciled.

Y'all just remember this before you're too hard on sky.

Edit: Terrible grammar.

sigh...

No they haven't, of course you'll quote a think tank or a radar reading but there has never been proof from the scientific community that extraterrestrial life is or has ever come to our planet.

I think this a cheap jibe...
Sky has constantly re-iterated that he makes the distinction between UFO's and ET's.
The scientific community certainly does accept radar trace events, and particularly multiple linked trace events as proof of UFO activity.

Now....

I think it is you that needs to separate UFO's and ET's in your mind and accept that attempting to assertively link ALL UFO's with ET's is not being propounded here.

Flesh eating Aliens
Unworldly strength Aliens
Mass Birthing Aliens
Ennormous Size Aliens


Clean up will commence after the first attack on whichever come first.
New Bill of Rights will be drafted by the Aliens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8KeeDqE5Xc

O.K., but unfortunately Burish's story works without any usual UFO sighting. This would be an installation of hardware hightech in undergroud labs on this planet. It is no overflight.
And therefore the difficult question rises of how credible this Burish story is. Just have a look at www.projectcamelot.org
Look for "Dan Burish and Stargates" - three parts.

Metric, I'm starting to have some serious doubts about the objectivity of that project. It seems they're less about disclosure and more about narratives. Proceed carefully, since I can see it doing more harm than good to what ever the truth may be.
Latest Camelot Topic Link

But, UFOs are not a fantasy, as evident on what transpired here.

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf

So, it is obvious from those official government documents, the U. S. government doesn't treat UFOs as fantasies. Just thought you would like to know that!



Actually, I love it when the pressure is on in a debate with the skeptics.

Were you aware of what the highly bias Colorado Study wrote in its report about the 1956 Lakenheath UFO incident? When I said that science has verified UFO case files, you should have followed up on what I was saying, because you would have found just how true it was.




And, up to 1/3 of the Colorado Study's UFO case files remain unexplained to this very day because there are no earthy explanations..