We can in regards to the UFO case files in question.

No doubt, and even earthquake lights as well, but the question is; were they responsible for the UFO case files in question? The answer is; no, and I am on the record that the majority of UFO sightings can be, and have been, explained.

We can't eliminate it for the Belgian radar track data and since you have yet to provide a meaningful answer to why you believe we can, by all means of respect, I don't see the purpose of continuing the discussion until you actually provides something that can be discussed.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[quote name='badeskov' date='Apr 26 2008, 05:29 AM' post='2266839']
We can't eliminate it for the Belgian radar track data and it has already been done.

What a crappy arguement

You are getting to the point were Im laughing at your posts, almost every time. The reason you answer like that is that you dont have the answer you hoped. No old documents that will support your fantasy.

What a flake.

The fact is, you have no idea if the UFOs are terrestrial(from the future) or extraterrestrials....NO IDEA...Like badeskov said... My point is just that we can't rule it out. And like hazzard said --

--that makes the believers wrong, and the skeptics right.

Facts, all facts that have yet to be refuted by the skeptics.



LOL!!!

Those old documents have withstood the test of time and skeptics attempts to debunk them as evident by the fact they remain unexplained in terrestrial terms to this very day and look what you posted.

Some skeptics just ain't got what it takes when knowledge is taken into consideration.

Actually, it has already been done.



Sorry, but no plasma was responsible, and it is that simple!

Is this your idea of what plasma looks like?

Eventually, even Phil Klass gave it up.

I has been refuted, you just dont like it!! There is noway you can say that these UFOs are alien in origin when the timetraveling "theory" is thrown into the fry. And you dont like it.





You just keep telling your self that! It doesnt make you right in any way shape or form. You have to show that these UFOs are ET beyond all other possible explanations...and you have failed. As long as you cant show us evidence that these "ships" arent from our terrestrial future YOU ARE GUESSING... that alone makes the skeptics right.

LOL!!!

Earth to debunker!!

The UFO documents remained unexplained O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L-L-Y in terrestrial terms to this very day.

Just thought that you would like to know that since you can't even find where the 1952 Washington D. C. UFO incidents have been officially explained and rested.

And, govenments are currently releasing their own UFO case files, so I just thought that you would like to know that as well.

Sorry sky, but even as you yourself admitted:



That simply makes them UFOs, nothing more.

Is this yours?

Geostationary banana over Texas Link

Petit-Rechain segmant from 'Analyse et implications physiques de deux photos de la vague belge' by Prof. Meesen, translated with Babel Fish Link

Now I don't speak that much French, but I do know that trois points lumineux blancs roughly means three white lights... How many lights are in t-h-a-t photo?
(maybe we should spell e-v-e-r-y w-o-r-d, s-i-n-c-e i-t m-a-k-e-s y-o-u-r p-o-i-nt s-u-p-e-r-i-o-r t-o a-l-l o-t-h-e-r-s w-h-e-n b-o-l-d u-n-d-e-r-l-i-n-e-d)
Why would the 'photo' show 4, if the witnesses saw 3? Surely they would have seen what was in the pictures and described that...

And where's my explanation for that report?

BOOOOM!!!! You said it skyeagle!!!! Not me!!! UNEXPLAINED!!


And you I see that you chose to ignore the rest of the post AGAIN!!

You have to show that these UFOs are ET beyond all other possible explanations...and you have failed. As long as you cant show us evidence that these "ships" arent from our terrestrial future YOU ARE GUESSING...

...that alone makes the skeptics right.

I'm surprised the nervous, inappropriate, laughter ( ) didn't give it away...

Poor skyeagle has made some terrible mistakes, besides the "reading between the lines nonsense"(code for I WANT TO BELIEVE) .The physical alien trace elements.The Belgium documents. Ignoring the uncomfortable, and cherry picking only the "evidence" that supports his claims.


And now this....



Sky, Im still waithing for your reply....

You have to show that these UFOs are ET beyond all other possible explanations...and you have failed. As long as you cant show us evidence that these "ships" arent from our terrestrial future YOU ARE GUESSING...

...that alone makes the skeptics right.

UFOs that were U-N-E-X-P-L-A-I-N-E-D in T-E-R-R-E-S-T-R-I-A-L-terms since in many cases, the objects were described as a metallic, saucer-shaped flying vehicLe with rotating lights, portholes, etc, as radar eventually tracked the vehicle at hypersonic speeds.

In other words, the UFO was visually confirmed and identified as a flying saucer and the chracteristics of it performance excluded aircraft.

It is all very simple; if the object was not ours by the very fact, then the object was not ours by that veryfact.

Nope, not mine nor of the objects that I have been talkling about.

You will note in some reports that the UFOs were described as metallic, saucer-shaped flying vehicles, but as you can plainly see in the image you posted, the UFOs I am talking about doesn\'t fit the shoe you are trying to sell.

Nice landing, but as I have said before, it would have been a great landing if you had lowered the landing gear beforehand.

I see the skeptic's hangar is full scrape metal from such landings.

Apparently, the image of the flying"banana" you posted, is not quiet accuate and doesn't fit the image of a real "flying banana."




Piasecki HRP-1 "Rescuer" / "Flying Banana"


http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBAIRCRAFT/AC_Piasecki_HRP.html


Just thought that you would like to know that!

Apparently, you are in what us pilots call; a flat spin!

\\\\\BOOOOOM/////

As a result of that "flat spin", you have just experienced what people call; a crash, because you didn't do your homework on how to handle a "flat spin of debunkery," and as a result, you have now contacted terra firma a bit harder than normal.

Understand the rest of the story and, for which I posted for Evangium.







Not surprising since debunkers are known to dereagard reality anyway!




LOL!!!

It has already been revealed that the objects have been coming in from deep space years ago, which has been reconfirmed by engineers who build spy satellites for NORAD, and it is no secret any more.

Nervous laughter!!! That's hilarious to say the least.

Especially since some skeptics have proven that they have no idea what they are talking about. If they did, they would have found why plasma doesn't fit any of the case files I posted.

All they had to do was to do their homework, and do it properly, but as usual, they don't and end up learning things the hard way, such as learning what a real "flying banana" looks like!

UFO Sightings by Scientists



__________________________________________________________

1960---Majorca Observatory staff Astronomy:

Triangular UFO about 1/4 apparent size of moon sighted at 9:33
a.m., spinning on its axis while on steady course. Report cabled
to NASA in Washington.

___________________________________________________________

Mojave Desert, California Frank Halstead Astronomy:

Cigar-shaped object followed by domed disc.

___________________________________________________________


Atlanta, Georgia H. Percy Wilkins Astronomy:

Two silvery objects "like polished metal plates" moving against wind; third grayish oval arced across sky.

__________________________________________________________

Las Cruces, N.M. Clyde W. Tombaugh Astronomy:

Circular pattern of rectangular lights, keeping fixed interval.


__________________________________________________________

Flagstaff, Arizona Syemour L. Hess Meteorology:

Astronomy Disc or sphere in apparent "powered" flight.

__________________________________________________________


Upinton, Cape Province:

So. Africa R.H. Kleyweg Meteorology Hemispherical disc tracked through theodolite.

__________________________________________________________





Just a tip of the iceberg of UFO reports made by scientist and engineers since the late 1940's.

What more can I say???

I am flabbergasted, to be quite honest. It is no wonder you come to the conclusion you do when you make such wild, completely unfounded association. As you are well aware, that picture has so much doubt attached to it that it is basically worthless. The image analysis and the events that surround it clear shows that. That has been posted numerous times, which you not only ignore as you have no way of saying otherwise (which is blatantly obvious), but you even keep posting it like the Oracle of Delphi had come to you to give you that image. No, that image does not help your case, it rather shows how weak your case is. Especially taking into account that you have no means of associating that image with your radar track data, as the report (which you yourself linked to in your attempt substatiate yourself) clearly stated that only lights were seen and some of the moved independently of each other - which means that they couldn't have been fixed to a craft, could they?!

But yet again, you managed to elegantly avoid coming up with any answer to that when I pointed that out.

By all means of respect, but you cherry pick your data, you knowingly make associations based on wrongful data and vividly avoid the pointy questions, which is why is discussion is getting rather pointless. It is a one sided affair where you literally keep posting the same garbage, and a number of people keep pushing their patience in spending time on pointing out where, why and how you are wrong, just to see the same pile of garbage posted over and over again. One wonders...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Nobody disputes that scientists have seen UFOs, of course they have. But maybe you can point me to that specific sentence where said scientists states that the UFOs they observed were of ET origin. Not that they could be, but were definitely of ET origin.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Actually, the skeptics have done their homework quite well, I think, and proven you wrong over and over again - and you have not put a single substantiated word forth to prove yourself right, rather, you excel in outdated reports which are clearly contradicted by newer science. Moreoever, even radar you were fumbling around in, not knowing how clutter was removed and what the difference was between the terms lookdown and downlook was. No, I am sorry Sky, but by all means of respect, you don't really come across as very convincing to be honest. If you had countered my radar details with your own technical details and we could have had a discussion based on that, my hat off to you. But so it shouldn't be, apparently

I am awaiting that moment when we can have such a conversation

Cheers,
Badeskov

Pure and simple nonsense. Either they are explained or they are unexplained. If they were concluded to be ET craft, that still makes them explained! Just because we presently can't explain them by putting an atmospheric event label on them doesn't mean that we will never be able to do so. It, on the other hand also means that we can't rule out ET until we find an Earthly explanation - which we might never do.

No, unexplained means just that, unexplained (in all senses).

Cheers,
Badeskov

OK, this I cannot even begin to fathom - it is moving beyond me...you again brought up Klass and this:



I presume the emphasized part (underlined) was your doing (it would be nice if you state so in your posts). So he ruled out plasma because:

1) It moved fast
2) It exhibited erratic trajectories with high acceleration rates
3) It exhibited geometric features

Isn't it strange that I posted excerpts (numerous times, actually) from the Hessdalen phenomena, where such exact behavior is shown to happen for plasmas?!?! But as last time (and the time before and the time before that and so on) you decided to ignore that fact and keep posting outdated conclusion that were clearly contradicted by newer data.

I asked you the last time you posted that if you could find me a report newer than year 2000 where plasma is ruled out, but you conveniently forgot to reply to that as well. I am still waiting....

Cheers,
Badeskov

Please describe what the scientist were describing, and then, post any reference where those objects the scientist had described, could have been ours.

In other words, if we don't have what the scientist and engineers were describing in their reports, then naturually, they can't be ours by that very fact. Since some of the UFOs were saucers observed hoverinng 200 miles above Earth, as indicated in one report, point out a helicopter than can hover 200 miles above Earth.

It's kinda like plasma was 'ruled out' because they couldn't fathom the strangeness of plasmas.

Why not?! After all, they are the facts. Plasma was not considered in the case, and rightly so. How long was the duration of that flight? Why did the Air Force also dismiss plasma as responsible for that case file?



Moot by the fact the duration of the encounter, the tracks of the actual UFO, which exclude plasma, and once again, not only did the experts in meteorology and other areas, but even the Air Force excluded plasma as well.

The Air Force sought to cover-up that incident by claiming that the UFO was an American Airlines DC-6, a propeller-driven aircraft that it says, was flying circles around a jet bomber at altitudes and velocities far above that of an DC-6, and amazingly, there were those who swallowed the Air Force's conclusion without question.

In other words, the "plasma shoe" didn't fit this case either and why those on both sides of the issue threw away the plasma theory right out the window.

Apparently now, and the reason being, they tried to push the plasma theory without ascertaining the facts surrounding the case files in question.

It was very clear that what was described, were actually artificial flying vehicles, not the result of any natural phenomenon. All you have to do is to read the reports to make that determination.

Actually, there were those in high levels of governemnt who came to the ET conclusion and I posted quite a few to make that point clear.



Unexplained in terrestrial terms because in some cases, the object was described as a metallic saucer-shaped hypersonic craft, which flew circles around the aircraft before zooming off in a climb at hypersonic speeds, so naturually, it is unexplained terrestrially speaking.

It is far easy for an official to declare the object as unexplained rather than what it really was, (ET), othewise, the press won't let him sleep for days and he would have known that before commenting.

Contradicting newer data???

Then, why has plasma today, been labled the "New Swamp Gas?"

An indication how well it was received by some.





Learn to read between the lines!!!

You are claiming that the UFOs are alien spaceships. Now...You have to show that these UFOs are ET beyond all other possible explanations...and you have failed.

As long as you cant show us evidence that these "ships" arent from our terrestrial future, and not ET, YOU ARE GUESSING...

RIGHT!!!?



Still waiting for a reply...!?

Wishful thinking on the part of skeptics, and not likely at all.

After all, other high level officials have already confirmed what I have been asserting, that had nothing to do with "guessing."






I already have, and I have been waiting for days for you to verify that plasma had nothing to do with the UFO case files in question! As a pilot, you should know why, so when I can expect a reply?!

But Sky, the fact that these plasmas have only recently been 'discovered' and have extremly long duration times compared to 'nomal' everyday plasmas must be considered. When plasma was 'ruled out' in this instance no-one knew that these plasmas existed and had such long duration times or such strange charateristics and behaviors.

I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained, and have been explained, and I even cited "earthquake lights" as well, but the cases that I am interested in are the radar/visual cases where aircrews distinctively described structured crafts, in many cases, with portholes and rotating beacons, and other little details that have excluded plasma.

Simply seeing lights in the sky is not that unusual because anyone can look up in the sky and see moving lights across the night sky, but the objects I am talking about were described by highly experienced aircrews of structured objects with the details mentioned above. My own aircraft was mistakened for a UFO over San Francisco bay as I approached Napa and Vallejo, CA.

One of our own KC-10s was mistaken as a UFO because most of those of the general public have never seen an KC-10 with all of its large array of lights on at the same time, which are not found on other aircraft, and I knew that a blimp, which flew behind my home one night, was a blimp and not a UFO, which was reported as such the next day in the local newspaper.

In that regard, I am not the kind of person who jumps on the UFO bandwagon everytime someone reports a UFO sighting until I have examined the details of that sighting. In other words, I am just as skeptical as Hazzard when it comes to UFO reports, but knowing the rest of the story is where we depart.

So, what I am saying is, even aircraft landing lights (even those of my own aircraft's lights) and "earthquake lights" have been reported as UFOs and I can vouch for that, but when the UFOs were not described as lights or any form of plasma or lights, but of stuctured flying crafts or vehicles, then that is where the road ends.

Fair enough, but I too have witnessed a highly strange and unussual "UFO" up close and personal. It was not a 'classic' flying saucer, it was much stranger than that. In that sense I don't think it's fair to blow off everything UFOlogical as being just "lights in the sky" or labeling them "Earth-lights" and only focus attention on "Flying Saucers" that people tend to assume are E.T. Crafts when there's clearly even stranger things in the atmosphere than your 'Classic' Flying saucer.

The problem here that these Hessdalen-like UAP's (plasmas) exhibit all the same characteristics and behaviors as your "Classic" Flying Saucer! They come in all shapes and colors including the flattened sperical shape associated with the "Classic" Flying Saucer. This is a major problem because how do we know that one persons "E.T. Spacecraft" isn't actually an observation of UAP?

More in the lines of this incident, that came about many years later.





How does that suppose to fit the description made by the TWA pilot of a "large round silver metal object with six jet black portholes equally spaced around the circurmference," with that of plasma?

In other words, what you are implying is that this object:



Is the "large round silver metal object with six jet black portholes equally spaced around the circurmference," that the TWA pilot described; now, am I correct?!

Sky, look at the strangeness these phenomena present.



http://openseti.org/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

You posted the following:



I underlined above, to make a point below. Is this a form of plasma?



Now, compare the image with the one below, and note the differences.




In many cases, the UFOs were not luminous anomalies at all as written in that report. Lights in the sky is nothing new because you can go out a see all kinds of light in the sky, night and day, since airline pilots usually leave their lights on below 10,000 feet for safety reasons.

Outside LAX, anyone can see all kinds of manuevering lights overhead and on the outskirts, but they are attached to conventional aircraft, but when pilots report structured crafts with equally-spaced portholes, metallic, saucer-shaped and rotating beacons, then chances are very good indeed that those objects have nothing to do with plasma, and that is a point that I have been trying to make.

It's impossible to say for sure Sky.

However, note that the "structure" you're perceiving in this photo (legitimate, or otherwise) is to be considered "low luminosity" as it is a dark 'blackish' color, and now read what I just posted and you underlined.



BTW, note that in the photo we apparently also see "light-spheroids without any solid structure" present within the "low luminosity" area.

The object you see that I posted, is identical to those that were witnessed by thousands of people in Europe, and worldwide and I have come across one person who also saw one as well. He works for a defense contractor that I was assigned to and I have come across others who have been revealing the UFOs are crafts, and a about three weeks ago, I found a pilot from the Arizona area who confirmed that the Phoenix UFO was in fact, a real flying craft.



Witnesses described the object as dark, no luminousity generated other than what is depicted in the photo at the center and at the appendages of the craft.

Question: What is the longest duration that plasma is known to exist in the atmosphere?

QUOTE

USA George AFB, California M two USAF F-86


pilots:

One round silver object was seen visually from ground and from two aircraft

.

One of my favorites. Flying saucers described as "flying manhole covers."

QUOTE

In 1926, years before Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting.

pilot:

six "flying manhole covers"

.

Not likely plasma as responsible.

Emile Schweicher *sp...Belgian professor who was consulted over the Radar tracks said " I might get thrown out for saying this, but the only explanation i can offer is some unknown craft". "They were not anomalies as 4 differing Radar systems all tracked exactly the same object"

As for this Fractal Gas Concentration..interesting idea, could well have legs... could you post me some links to another web site where this is discussed as i can't find a single one apart from the one discussing the Norwegian lights. If that had been pro ET, the debunkers would have been all over the it demanding independent verification and talking about unsubstantiated scientific quackery.

But then of course this is Ufology we are discussing....

If a High Ranking General says *It was an unknown craft"
If a Belgium's leading expert on Radar technology says "It was probably an unknown craft"

How the hell would they know? When some kid from Boise with 2 O levels and a budgerigar says *Oh no it wasn't, cos some bloke i read who wasn't there and hasn't a clue what the actual data was, said it wasn't...

DITTO!!!

Dissimilar airborne and ground-based radar systems all tracking the same object that was described as a triangular-shaped craft with white lights at the appendages and one red light in the middle, which has been reported over our nations as well.

In other words, they are are describing a craft that military officials stated, had shown signs that it was intelligently controlled as it reacted to aircraft radar lock-on attempts.

If that triangular craft is a black project - such as the one 'suggested' below:

Click to view attachment

Then we don't have anything to worry about really, yes it's secret now - but one released to the public in about 10-20 years it will represent a breakthrough in modern propulsion and aerodynamic design...They might even use them one day as passenger craft.

I know the pic says 'nuclear powered' but the video I watched mentioned something about super-cooled high speed rotating plasma.

Radar can prove nothing more than where an object, craft or UFO is posistioned in the sky. It doesn't show photos etc. which stands to reason, that if we based everything on it, it would not give much evidence that would stand up, as I have said before,"would crumble with a stiff breeze". The argument against it, would be, how can you prove it is a UFO from outer space, your rebuttal sky would be, how can you prove it isn't? This is solely what your argument is based on. Personally, I think your just as bad as full blown skeptics, and furthermore, if you were to say, 'because the craft in question on the radar is not recorded in the FAA'S record books, it is ET UFO' then many would cry out: ever heard of governements developing new craft for wars etc. I personally believe that firemoon has a strong point skyeagle, and that you should consider his points.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

But a trained RADAR operator would be able to tell if they got a ping from say a flock of birds, or another airliner/aircraft as they transmit their ID info which is then updated on the RADAR screen. Any ping seen to be unidentified and moving erratically or un naturally must be given the designation of UFO - it doesn't mean its alien, but it proves something pinged up on RADAR which was definately an object, it was unidentified and it was flying.

By the way, flocks of birds don't transmit their ID codes

Where did you that idea???

Radar can do much, much more than just pinpoint an object in the sky and on the ground. As I posted before, experienced radar controllers can even differentiate birds from aircraft and even helicopters and other things.

Once again, any evidence apart from a report with no scource?