WTF? So your saying, that a SECRET GOVERNMENT TEST would just give out information about itself ie. ID codes etc.??? I beg to differ. Think what you just said through

I agree that the photo is legitimate because there were others like it taken elsewhere as well. The question is who's are they?

I personally believe that the US still has the best scientists in the world within their military industrial complex with tons of funding and access to unlimited resources to experiment with.

The other stuff in your report means nothing without proof post names, video interview and so on dude.

Thats not what I said



I was meaning other passenger aircraft in the RADAR range.

The black project/UFO would show up as an unidentified ping on the RADAR

Read through what I just said again.

What? you're expecting skyeagle to 'post' an alien corpse or part of an alien craft.
er bit of perspective please... this is only an internet forum..

I think airplanes have a device who transmits their id to radars, so the operators knows who they are. Even a secret military plane will use those equipment.

If the ufo in question is a secret project they wouldn't be flying near populated areas, much less over other nations. Can you imagine if the plane needs to land to repair or even crash in a foreign country?

The only time (IMO) that secret craft would fly over populated areas or another country's airspace would be to test stealth capabilities or maybe interception evasion. Other then that - the craft is too valuable to risk it falling into the wrong hands to just go around and 'buzz' the neighbours

we don't take kindly to no 'logical speculation based on facts' in this here parts of the UM....

And they would catch a lot of attention from military, every time an aircraft enters the air space of a country and dont respond to radar operators planes are send to intercept the intruder.

Which is too risk for nothing, they would make these tests with their own equipment. Especially if the craft in question is used for military, an accident would provoke an international incident.

Wasn't there an american plane crashed in china, some time ago, and the chineses striped all the plane before returning to us? Or something...

Answer: Unknown. It seems that, whilst they can get the right colour and the right size for the smaller ones, the ones created under laboratory seem to have a very short duration. Thus all we have for naturally occuring phenomena is observational data, which only applies to, surprisingly, that which has been seen. Sound familiar?

And FYI, there's a world of difference between the flying banana (as if my avatar isn't hint enough about one of my amatuar interests) and the G-BOT project (for a start the G-BOT will be in a region that is above the FAA's jurisdiction- according to the website the FAA doesn't care what goes on in that region.. hmm...) Guess you've been caught skimming again...

Errrm, follow the thread. I was talking about radar, not alien corpses. How random.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

What the hell are you, the UM police? It's not up to you to say what can be written and not. There are such things as mods, don't do their jobs for them!


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

It was a joke...

Thanks BILLHILL

Yes, I read that article (funny how you didn't post a reference) and there is no technical understanding in that article whatsoever anyways, so it doesn't really help you.

Again, post a reference to a technical article/report after year 2000, then we can talk.



Read between the lines, or how to read data to fit your hypothesis.

Yeah, we all know that one - the last resort for the desperate if scientific data doesn't fit their belief. Absolutely and utterly irrelevant.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Since a lower localized degree of ionization in a plasma typically would appear as a dark spot and be centro-symmetrical (round), I don't see any contradiction. Furthermore, if more such lower density ionization spots exists within a plasma, they would either merge, disappear or be equally spaced within the plasma to maintain an equilibrium. Again, no contradiction. So, yeah, absolutely plausible.



No, I certainly don't say it looks like that. I would expect it to look just like the pilots decscribe, as that is absolutely plausible for a plasma.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Hi Lost,

It was, as it was poorly understood and the more strange behavior of plasmas not known at the time; thus, to a certainextent it is understandable that it was ruled out.

Cheers,
Badeskov

yes, on their on behalf. But that doesn't make it a fact.



Yes, it is unexplained. In terrestrial and non-terrestrial sense.



No, it is the right thing to do. Either you know what it was or you don't. Period.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Why?



This is just a fallacy beyond any comprehension, by all means of respect. Just because we encounter a phenomena we can't explain within our atmosphere, that makes it of ET origin?! Why not enjoy the wonders of the world and accpet that the fact that we simply don't know everything about it yet?

Cheers,
Badeskov

I agree.

Once again, you are missing the point. The documented visual descriptions of metallic, intelligently controlled saucer-shaped vehicles with rotating beacon lights and portholes from highly experienced aircrews, does not match descriptions of plasma.


Question: What is the longest duration of plasma in the atmosphere anyway?

As noted by the Air Force, the craft exhibited intellligence in its maneuvers and visual descriptions of the craft was that of an artificial vehicle, not plasma, a point you seem to ignore.



What it is, you are taking a lable from a Chevy van and sticking it on a Ford truck to convince yourself that the Ford truck is actually a Chevy van. As the old saying goes: If the shoe doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

No it isn't and from the aircrew's description, the craft was not plasma anymore than swamp gas.

Right... So now we've got some beaten up ol' jalopy and you're trying to put a ferrari lable on it.

Double speak, slogans and catch phrases might work for guys like Dubya and Obama (on the campaign trail), but I'd hardly describe them as facts to back an argument. Especially when the argument is about two unknowns...

And where's my explanation of that report I posted several pages ago, oh great radar-visual boffin?

Since there are documents, which support their case, which are available under the FOIA, so what more is there to say?

One such case is that of JAL Flt 1628, where supporting data and other evidence, which were examined in Washington D.C., confirmed the incident took place as reported by the JAL aircrew.

The captain reported that multiple saucer-shaped crafts were flying around his aircraft and that one of them was larger than two aircraft carriers and the data proved that the aircraft was in fact, being followed by the gigantic object. Ground-base radars from the FAA and of the Air Force, confirmed the objects.

Two momths later, an Air Force and commercial aircrews encountered a similar gigantic craft as well and the craft was also described as flying saucer.

The facts determine where the lable is placed, which doesn't support the skeptics by any means as they try to pin the Chevy lable on a Ford.

Well, after all, the people who reported observing flying saucers hovering 200 miles above Earth, were scientist themselves. Since we don't have helicopters that can hover 200 miles above Earth, means that the flying saucers the scientist reported observing with their instruments, were not ours by that very fact.

You don't know anything about radar to understand the nature of what I am talking about as evident.

I could plant false information on radar and if found by you on the internet, use it against me and you wouldn't even know the difference.

Hmmmm!! The FAA is always interested in what goes on in its jurisdiction.




So, once again, I had to post historical facts just to present what a real "flying banana" looks like vs. your false image of a banana that never was.

Amongst my source, the Air Force, the same organization I have been affiliated with for well over 30 years.

I will reiterate, that radar can do things that you won't find on the internet and can even differentiate between a Chevy van and a Ford truck in certain modes if the aircraft is above a certain altitude at X-miles from the target and then, the WSO, can take a radar photo image of the Chevy van and Ford truck and correctly target his wife's van while leaving his neighbor's truck untouched.

And yes, radar can differentiate between an aircraft and a real UFO, (a.k.a., flying saucer) and it is all very simple on how it is done.

Funny, it seems like it's been working the other way... Oh well, if anyone wants to bust your chops about why that statement just shows you up on so many levels, I'm not going to stand in their way...

Anyway, onto your erronous remark regarding GBOT and the FAA (which apparently has something to do with JAL and nothing to do with 21st century art )
Link

Yes the GBOT will be passing through FAA jurisdiction, but it won't be staying there...

Try posting some old document from the 50s, and claim that its a fact that the aliens are here flying around in their spaceships, abducting people, playing around in our fields and cutting up cows butts.

No wait....thats been done already.

Did it convince anyone....nope.

Nothing personal, but if you write to the webmaster, he'll probably tell you the name of his friend who drew this fake imitation of some make-believe goofo Belgian UFO picture. It's a FAKE!

Just like billboards with "C'mon Down To Luke's Used Autos! Have We Got a Deal For You!"

Wake up or else come up to speed on how much is just computer graphics since whenever. It's ubiquitous. Just like photo fakes from earlier times.

I could not tell you of one real flying ET metal ship picture. I just don't know of any.

And, neither does some kid that fakes a Belgian UFO!

Nor, do I think that case was "people from our future". Maybe, I'm just a little behind on such matters, though...

Again, this is really just trivial. But, that flying saucer illustration from a USAF training manual, from years ago.

Look. That is just kind of silly. I don't mean to insult, but geeze. It's a friggin' training manual with fun, encouraging intros. It's like giving a talk- you open with something lighthearted, to get their attention.

What does the manual actually teach? There was an invasion, and those pilots had to learn about it from silly cartoons?

(and if you say it was explicitly about flying saucers, I'll suggest that was so-much CIA/etc. bull for the Soviets- who used saucer hoakum a few times, themselves).

Of course its a fake.

Sky, you have now made another CLASSIC.....you just posted a FAKE alien spaceship as "hard evidence".

Please tell me you knew this, and that it was ment as a joke!!!

What's rather odd about that photo, is that it is apparently the only good, clear photo that has been taken of any of the UFOs involved in the UFO flap. Apparently thousands of people (including SOBEPS researchers) tried, and found that they either had nothing on film, or blurry objects. Even the SOBEPS guys thought that the lights in their photo were considerably fainter than what they were in real life. Prof. Meesen eventually came up with a workable theory that these distortions were caused by IR light (plausible? I don't know, since I've only worked with and around digital cameras).
Still, a bit odd that this phenomena had such a widespread effect on different makes and models of camera and batches of film, and this one guy (who was out with his girlfriend) manages to snap the money shot... Luck or something else?

What are you saying Evangium?

Remember the pictures taken by Adamsky, and the other guy, whats his name..? They were also "good", clear as crystal...but still fakes. As you know, a picture is only a 2d representation of a 3d world, easy to fake in this day and age. Not evidence at all.

Apparently, I am on the correct levesl, floosr so to speak, and that is why the facts keep the skeptics in the basement of denial.

You know, I have repeatedly got on other skeptics for not doing their homework and now, I have to let you know that you have to do the same.

First of all, the illustrations were not from any Air Force manual, they are in regards to JAL Flt 1628, which encounted UFOs over Alaska.

If you check it, it is the description of what thousands saw over Belgian and other areas that took place over a period of many months, not in one night.

And, guess what the many witnesses were trying to take a photo of that were not coming out clearly?

A triangular-shaped craft with lights on the three appendages and one red llight in the middle.

Exactly!! Not a real photo at all.

Evidence of aliens on Earth, I dont think so.

I don't think you understand. The image of the object I presented is what thousands of witnesses described.



I hope you got the message that the Belgian Triangle has already been proven as an actual craft, question is: was it ours? You can make that determination by looking at the performance characteries and data released by the Belgian Air Force.

Who would want to eat such a banana since it is to be a semi-rigid object and filled with helium? I am very sure there will be NOTAMs as a result of any launch.

I disagree. I'll also readily admit I don't know what the current level of spy technology is as far as non-satellite flight, history is full of secret craft that have done just that.

U-2, SR71? Both those craft flew over populated areas or another country's airspace, and not to test stealth capabilities.

As well as the fact they also flew over not only the target airspace, but intervening airspace to get from their home base to the target country.

I just thought I'd point that out.

How can you be sure that it was extraterrestrials, and not timetraveling humans from our future????

Because we are talking the present and past, not the future, and they don't exist at this point in time.


Just wanted to add something, and to let you know there is more behind that report.



So, here is where the presence of the Belgian Triangle was confirmed on multiple ground-based radars and two airborne radars of the F-16s. Ground-based observers describe the object in the manner of the image I have already provided.

On another note, the Belgian incidents took place over a period of many months, not just one night, so there is much, much more to the story that involved the Belgian Triangle incidents, which took place in 1989, 1990, and beyond, and NATO is not tellling all that have been going on behind closed-doors either.

The lead F-16 pilot also confirmed in his video interview that I provided, that both he, and his wingman were tracking the same target as ground-based radars.

They??

And how could you possibly know that "they don't exist at this point in time"??



If this is real to begin with...the multiple radar hits and "thousands of eyewitnesses"...hard to capture on film/photo,etc.. it sounds pretty interesting. However, without any REAL evidence Im afraid that this is another dead end.

Agreed, something like that is very unlikely to be plasma. However, something like that could be extrapolation on the part of pilots (no ones power of observation is perfect), or something of Earthly origin (aka, black ops), or tourists from the future, or ET paying us a visit. We simply can't know for sure. It's this "we simply can't know for sure" aspect that causes any specific hypothesis to remain unproven at this point in time. This is what many here are trying to impart.

Don't mean to be rude, but that picture looks like it was drawn by a two year old. Good evidence? I think not


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

The latest theory on time travel runs thus... You can only travel back in time to the point where the first time machine was built...