Thanks!

When it comes to single witness testimony, I like to have viable supporting evidence and verifiable documentation.

From the document linked to above:





UFOs exist. They are objects that fly and are not identified. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hyper-religious belief that UFOs are craft built and controlled by ET is a fantasy, as fully evidenced by how you build your religion from such non-evidence as this document.

Did my hypothesis miss, sky? What was the reaction to and result of the UFO sighting you reported? Have you had other sightings that you reported? What resulted from those reports? Is there any impartial record of your report(s) and the fallout from them?

Coming to terms with reality, my friend, can be very difficult especially after all these years.


OS

You will notice in the distribution list, that incident went all the way up to the White House from intelligence channels and of the Department of Defense.




In many cases, the UFOs were identified by highly trained and experienced flight crews with many years of flying time, as "spaceships" or "flying saucers" and radar and other means were used to verify their encounters. The trackings on those objects have confirmed that the objects were those of intelligently controlled crafts and the specifics of their maneuvering capabilities exclude all aircraft.

In the Bariloche UFO encounter, the UFO was identified as a "flying saucer."



The Bariloche incident was mentioned in the COMETA Report as well.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html

The reason why I apply 'ET' is some case files is because I already know that we don't have such technology that has been demonstrated by those UFOs, otherwise, we would be using such advanced technology for everyday air travel at hypersonic speeds and not worry about sonic booms.

I had actually hoped for answers to my questions regarding your sighting(s.) If you'd rather not re-live that, just let me know if I'm waiting in vain.

We may be on the extraerrestrial menu? Like really fast food snacks to go.

First a study is not scientific proof, its a few people that form a think tank and make a range of hypothesis, some mundane, some extraordinary. nor is it really anything at all. Second 52 years old? Can we not use such archaic information? Once again there is no smoking gun, because there is no Gun!! You ever ask yourself why every picture of UFO's or video's of UFO's is always blurry distorted or just poor quality? Because if it was clear, you'd see that it was something completely mundane, and not some supernatural voodoo air craft from mars! The quasi-science that you post here is, in my opinion, quite dangerous because it gives the opposite direction of truth through the guise of science, where in reality it is anything but science. And is anything but evidence or proof.

.....no....i dont
because theyre not all poor quality.

I hate when people say this!
There are many photos that are not "blurry distorted or just poor quality" i believe that most people who say this, dont even look at ufo photos The other side of the coin though is that many of the same people who always say the old "blurry distorted or just poor quality" would turn around and say a photo is fake, just because it looks real, meaning its not blurry or distorted, so you cant win really with these people.

I have never seen a photo that wasn't either blurry or low quality, or a hoax or fake. There are some real talented hoaxers out there but there are also some really gullible people too. And trust me I've seen a TON of photos and videos. I used to be a rabid believer like most here, but thank god common sense got a hold of me.

Well, you have not seen many photos Im sorry, but there are photos that show craft that are clear, but the problem is, are they real or fake. Its so easy to fake movies and photos these days, but that does not mean that when a photo or movie crops up that is clear, it does not mean its fake, or real, but clear photos and movies are out there. I am a huge believer in unexplained ufos, but that does not mean i believe they are ET, but there is more than enough evidence that some ufo's are unexplained, and need further investigation.

I have to say this too. It is common sense that makes me believe what i believe.

I present a scientific study because I got slammed for not doing so or because a skeptic brought up the scientific community, and then all of a sudden, it is not an important issue anymore!

What's up with that???

That's you creating a strawman defense. This is the same as your "They ask for [valid, verifiable] scientific evidence, and I present [flawed, outdated, innaccurate, anecdotal, irrelevant, or unverifiable information that I claim is] scientific evidence, but the skeptics won't buy it" argument.


Am I not going to get an answer to my questions about what happened after you reported your sighting in Vietnam? What about the sighting itself? What do you recall of that? Just let me know if I should drop the subject, but I really am curious.


OS

What difference does that make? Are there any crystal-clear photos of the planet Pluto? This photo is clear enough to see that it isn't a B-29



HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

TOP SECRET AF cy 102
CONTROL
No 6637
___________________________________________________________________


Even this photo is clear enough to see that it isn't a B-747.




Now about this video?! It is clear enough to see that it isn't the B-2 bomber.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ufo-nell...site/3480459662

I keep hearing all of this talk from the skeptics about scientific investigations and the scientific community and when I post a report from within the scientific Colorado Study, then all of a sudden, the UFO train is on the wrong track.

That is the way some skeptics work (blurry photos) when their back is against the wall.

sorry, i just have to say that i believe in knowledge too and i think that real clever knowledge goes hand in hand with the belief! They say that ignorance is bliss, and i find this to be very true!

I have questioned and sought answers to everthing biological and scientific and spiritual and the knowledge of the one went hand in hand with the other!

they also say that genius is closest to madness, because when one learns too much, they sometimes see the real truth.... and quite frankly aliens, different kinds of aircraft, i mean come on, it's not even that ridiculous is it! there's a big old sky out there and there is more balls spinning in the air than ours!

spirit X

Sorry, I didn't read the report you posted as I was just skimming while I take a little break from the joys of life here. With your track record, though, (read that as: lack of credibility,) I wouldn't expect others to put much effort into it either.

Also, I will take what was lacking in your response as meaning, "No, I will not recount my UFO experience in Vietnam or the aftermath." I strongly suspect I know why you made that choice.


Thank you for your patience with me. Carry on.


OS

Planet pluto is 93,000,000 miles from earth and we can get a fuzy picture of it. I would expect something within 2 miles in our own atmosphere can get a clear shot.





This sure as heck looks like a hubcap or a chiped saucer (teacup not the ET type) And wasn't this photo shown to be a hoax? Not sure of that. Plus the old 1950's photo, you really got to get a little more current than this.


The video of this supposed ship looks a lot like the ghosts from Pac-Man game. Once again super glare and fuzzy quality showing no details and very little to it being anything other than another plane or balloon.

What we skeptics want is real hard core proof, derived from labritory type conditions. No 3rd hand information, no blurry, distorted, grainy, out of focus pictures or video. Solid proof. With a real scientists. Not what you argue as scientific proof that you get a few grad students and a couple crack-pots in the same room and make posulations and speculations on something that has no bias with reality. Sorry you can't skate that one away. A think tank is not lab. And it sure as hell ain't proof.


Are you kidding me? See above post. nuff said.

why are they crack-pots exactly?

Your Pluto argument is getting older by the minute Sky...There will soon be extremly good pictures of Pluto.

How can this be, you ask, well first of all we know were it is, even though its REALLY far away. We know were Pluto is going to be in space at a given time....So NASA sent the New Horizon probe to check it out? New Horizons is still too far from Pluto for LORRI, Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager, to resolve any details on Plutos surface – that wont happen until summer 2014, approximately one year before closest approach.



THE SAME CAN NOT BE SAID FOR ALIEN STARSHIPS.

Doesn't matter Hazzard. I think you know better than most of us, that he's a debunker. And, as he claims skeptical debunkers do, he's not interested in the truth, as much as he's consumed with destroying the arguments of those he percieves to be p*ssing on his church's altar.

This is not so much a discourse for the truth, but one designed to attack those more empowered and autonomous, and ultimately to bring down the 'establishment'. I remember seeing somewhere a comment to the effect that those of skyeagle's vintage comes from a time that complete distrust of the government was par for the course...

Drop in on the Roswell thread for more of the same

edit:spelling

Soon!!! What does that mean? Will it include direct physical evidence as well?

When can we expect airborne and ground-based radar data on Pluto that we have now for UFOs? How about ELINT data on Pluto that we now have on UFOs? When can we can expect physical trace evidence from Pluto that we now have from UFO landing sites? When can people expect to see Pluto close-up with their own eyes that millions have been doing over the centuries in regards to flying saucers and objects of other shapes? When can we expect Pluto to fly along side of aircraft that UFOs have been doing for decades?

In the mean time you can review photos of UFOs that are clear enough to see that they are not conventional aircraft.

I do have a nice list of past claims of skeptics that were later debunked with the facts.

In fact, no facts were really necessary and all it would have taken was just some old-fashioned common sense.



Yes, Hazzard, drop in and see why the Roswell incident remains unexplained to this very day.

Pluto is 93,000,000 miles from Earth????

I guess that explains part of the problem on the way you look at UFOs. I think you need to notify the astronmers that they are all wrong.





Not surprising that is what you think after reading your message that Pluto is 93,000,000 miles from Earth!

Please call your friendly neighborhood astronomer and let him on your findings about the distance of Pluto from Earth! I am very sure he will be interested in knowing what you do!

You folks are trying to use logic and reason to convince someone to whom logic and reason are foreign to the safe, warm personal reality he has constructed. Sky appears to have some pretty serious problems, and continuing this "argument" is not helping his state any. Be warned: When his posts start to be punctuated with words in all-caps, things will slide downhill quickly. That step comes soon after ridiculing irrelevent misstatements in order to obfuscate the point, and self-aggrandizement as a replacement for authoritative pronouncement.

Actually, I am implying that physical evidence on hand is not required to prove anything.

The skeptics demand direct physical evidence before they will believe anything, and I say that direct physical evidence is not required, but they come back and say that physical evidence is required, so I respond by saying, if that is the case, then where's the physical evidence on Pluto?

So using their skeptical logic, because they can't produce any physical piece of Pluto, it therefore does not exist.

Apparently, laboratory conditions is what other skeptics have been demanding, so why are you distancing yourself from them?



Apparently, you don't have any faith in our technology in deceiphering information from blurry photos. In other words, the "blurry photo" argument of skeptics is very weak at best.



To let you know, some of the folks who were tracking flying saucers at hypersonic speeds were scientist, and they even documented their findings.



Just thought you would like to know that scientist have been involved in tracking flying saucers as well!

Sky, you're smart enough to know the holes in this point you made, and the illogic you had to employ to make it. I know you are. I believe that somewhere in you, you still have the capability for rational thought. I don't have to believe that UFOs are ET's version of a Volkswagen Beetle to know that you are articulate, and a skilled gatherer and recaller of data.

To paraphrase from one of my earlier posts: You may be right. One day, we may have proof. But your whimsical methodology has destroyed your credibility, possibly beyond repair.

I don't expect you to understand any of this any more than I can expect our family dog, friendly and loveable as she is, to understand ethics. And this conversation is just about as useful as me trying to explain ethics to her.

But I would still like to know what happened in Vietnam. If you won't tell, do you have any reliable, impartial web links where I can get more information?

Actually, it puts the skeptics who demand physical evidence on UFOs, on the defensive.

Again, you're smart enough to know better than that. It just makes you look foolish for making the comparison. I very much wonder what would drive a person to do such self-destructive things, which is why I keep asking about Vietnam.


OS

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

TOP SECRET AF cy 102
CONTROL
No 6637
___________________________________________________________________




Well, I would have to say that the picture bears a striking resemblance to a "clay pigeon" that has just been released, and the sling arm (dont know if it is because I cannot scale it) on the extreme right of the photo looks very like a "Clay Pigeon" sling, especially with the "knobbly" retainer on the end. Do you know if there is just the one picture, or is there a sequence or film of the event??

The Video however was really intriguing, and I cannot even begin to think of any source that might be able to reproduce that!!

WOW

Thats one way to put it. But you are right though. Sky seems a little toooo panic and defensive....even for a true believer. True fanatic is probably a better way to describe him.

All those skeptics butt he braggs to have kicked....im sure he did...in his own mind.

Skyeagle...whatever happend to the Disclosure project that you spoke so about 2 years ago...did Greer deliver......I think NOT.

Actually, the trent photos have not been proven fake at all, not even to this day.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH Now your just being silly Sky. Is this the way you kicked all those skeptics behinds!!!???

This is a keeper...A Classic!! I love it!!:tu:

I find these "ageist" comments very objectionable, it pre-supposes that those of us over a "certain age" have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Yet I would say to those of you that are still wet behind the years, have considerably less to contribute. Your experiences are vastly sub-ordinate, your grasp of real social - interraction, and networking outside of your favourite bars, and very small group of friends tends to colour your perceptions, and possibly, even your autonomous ability to think outside the box. So it is, and so it has always been, the younger generation always believes it holdsALL of the answers.

*goes to get his Zimmer frame*

Well, I have also stated that there were times when I disagreed with UFOlogist.

After all, while they were still concentrating on Charles Moore's false Mogul balloon trajectory, I was busy saying that Moore's false trajectory was moot because there were no such flight to begin with. I came to that conclusion when I could not find any records of any such flight, so years later, here come the UFOlogist and even some skeptics, jumping on my bandwagon, that no such flight took place. That is a clue that I tend to go further than even UFOlogist.

You see, I tend to go beyond even where UFOlogist are willing to go, but eventually, they soon discover why I have gone to such great lengths, and Project Mogul is just one example of a few.

Another are the MJ-12 documents and the disagreements I had with UFOlogist in Europe on the Belgian UFO incidents. Some have said that it was an American F-117, while others said that it was another type of secret aircraft. Now, it has been determined that those UFOlogist were wrong on both counts, but I told them why there were wrong in the first place! It took an official declaration from the United States to the Belgian government to set the record straight. Besides, the military doesn't conduct test flight in such a reckless manner anyway.



I am not really bragging, but I have already posted several examples for other websties that proved my facts were right on the money! I guess you missed Tim Printy's admission and why he was forced to make a correction on his website.

If you have been following up on things, you would have found where I provided other examples where corrections were made as well, so it has nothing to do with what is in my own mind, but those of facts, and nothing less.

Since you missed the fireworks, and I don't know how as I have posted this before, I am presenting you with the websites on what transpired.

http://www.bautforum.com/893949-post1025.html

http://www.bautforum.com/893917-post1018.html

And, Tim's correction that came about afterwards, that you somehow had missed as well.

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




Yes, he did deliver, and in fact, some of those cases were found to not have eartlhy explanations.

To further add, my own base at Hill AFB was involved in one of the cases that was presented at the Disclosure Project. I fact, the investigation into that particular incident were documented by the Boeing Aircraft company and other government contrators, but it seems that you were unaware of those facts.

Even the FAA revealed that in another case presented at the Disclosure Project, documents and data tapes sent to Washington D. C. for analysis have proven that JAL incident did in fact, involved UFOs and that one UFO was in fact, gigantic, and it seems that you were unaware of those facts as well.

The pilot said that the saucer-shaped UFO was larger than two aircraft carriers and weeks later, other aircrews, including those of the Air Force, have confirmed their encounters with a simiilar UFO that was larger than ships in the general area.

Other case files presented by the Disclosure Project have been verified as well and in some cases, the documents are available under the FOIA.

You see, it pays to do your homework. So no, I am not bragging at all, just presenting reality for what it is!

You said it, I didn't!

Since they can't deliver the physical evidence I've demanded, what else can they do??? Throw "blurry" photos of Pluto at me to prove that Pluto exist?! If they throw data at me, then I can do likewise.

In other words, if they want to head-to-head with data, then we can do that!

You've got that right!

Skeptics have suggested that a string was attached to a model, but when the photos were closely analyzed, no string was found.

Forced him!!?? You told him that a plane could indeed land a that runway...You were right...he added it to the website..BIGDEAL!!

The post, from HAZZARD i believe, was..show us where you ever kicked skeptics butt ABOUT UFOs=Aliens.



I have corrected lots of people in my life,about many things...do i go around bragging about it...no i dont.

Again...Show us these times when you "won" over a skeptic in the UFOs = ET!!!


ITS TIME TO PUT UP, OR......

Could it have been because the camera didnt "see" the string the moment the pic was taken...Yes it could.

Well, during the debate on the Roswell incident, Tim was wrong, and as a result, he was using that piece of bad information to try to discredit one of the Roswell witnesses, and now, Tim knows what time it is!



As I have said, not bragging at all, but just bringing reality out into the open, and when the skeptics go on the offensive, I am simply pointing out where they are wrong. That is not bragging, but I do tend to bring out their shortcomings.

Were you even aware that analysis has already proven that no string was involved?

Utter rubbish, Sky. We've been over this many times already. We have just as much evidence for the existence of Pluto as we have for our sun. We know Pluto exists because it can be observed and measured at will. Its position is known with extreme accuracy and can be reliably predicted years in advance. Its properties have been measured many, many times and these observations can be repeated and verified by anyone with the proper equipment at any time they wish.

Scientific proof is not about holding a piece of something in your hand. It's about experimental results and observations that can be repeated and independently verified by other researchers. Can I touch the sun? No, but that doesn't prevent me from knowing with absolute certainty the time at which it will rise tomorrow morning. Can I grab a radio wave out of the air and hold it in my hand? Of course not, but I can easily prove that my favorite station is broadcasting by simply turning on my car radio.

I can tell you exactly where Pluto is at any given time and you can observe it, measure it with any instrument you wish, and verify the results against the current scientific database. If you really want to hold a piece of Pluto in your hand, then all you need to do is build a ship and fly there. It's a known location. Now, please tell me where I can find an extraterrestrial spacecraft tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. I want to know exactly where it will appear, how fast it will be moving, its overall size & shape, and precisely which measurable characteristics uniquely identify it as an alien spacecraft.

If you can't do this, then please stop claiming that there is as much evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft as there is for Pluto.

There was no strings! The photos have been analyzed many times, and if it is a fake, it certinly was not strings.

You, and other skeptics are totally, and I do mean totally, missing the point!! I am not implying that Pluto does not exist.

If you take at look back into history, you will find skeptics demanding direct physical evidence on hand to prove the existence of UFOs, while dismissing the data evidence in the same breath. I have stated that physical evidence on hand would be nice, but is not required.

If that were the case, then that would be a little problem because we don't have any direct physical evidence on Pluto that we can hold in our hands. I hope that straignten things out a bit.

So in the absence of direct physical evidence, it then comes down to the data. However, we have eyewitness accounts that is supported by the data--that in reference to UFOs. In addition, we have physical trace evidence taken from UFO landing sites.



And, there is data on UFOs that can be examined time and again. Data that we don't have on Pluto.



Which presents a bit of a problem currently.



I can't do that anymore than I can tell you when the B-2 bomber will overfly Washington D.C. or the so-called "Aurora" will overfly Texas. I can't even tell you when a Cherokee 140 will overly San Francisco, CA., but does that mean it doesn't exist? Of course not! I hope you see the fallacy of your argument in that respect and you know, I can take it down even further!

In fact, during the time the CIA's A-12 was in its test stage, no one could provide any information on where that aircraft would appear overhead next, yet the aircraft did exist, and it was faster and flew higher than the SR-71.



http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/a-12/

I might also add that there has been a debate amongst astronomers on whether Pluto is even a planet!

That goes beyond silliness. Analysis has failed to show the existence of air and microbes in the photograph also. How do you account for that?

Analysis can only detect what the camera detected. Camera and film quality from 1950 are de facto hindrances to using photographic evidence from that era as proof of anything. I believe there were strings involved, and my proof of this theory is below.

This image is a merge of Plate 23 and Plate 24 from the Condon report. I used the two wires across the top of the plates as my references. The only 2 things I did to correct the images for perspective were:

1. Zoomed Plate 24 so that the wires across the top were the same size and reference points on them matched with Plate 23.
2. Rotated Plate 23 so that the wires lined up, resulting in a very close approximation of how the two shots would have appeared if they had been taken from the same vantage point. The image in Plate 23 was taken from a point to the right and back from where the photo in Plate 24 was taken.

To create the red lines, I simply rotated the image the base of one of the "objects" was horizontal, and drew a perpendicular line vertically from it. I repeated this for the second "object." Notice that the perpendicular lines converge exactly on the lower line.

A rational examiner will also note that the smallest details we can make out in the photographs are well above the width of a piece of twine. In fact, there are many, many vertical artifacts in the picture that exceed this width. Whether these are artifacts from the photographic process, development process, or the age of the photos, I don't know, but they all combine to make the photos less definitive than a mindless believer may wish them to be.

Very, very interesting indeed.

And here I am, a lowly amateur with a spare 5 minutes, offering a simple explanation and following it with a demonstration.

We get the point. But you completely miss the point that you are comparing apples to nuclear power plants.



But nobody with their faculties intact argues that it doesn't exist. Hellloooo, strawman.

By the way, who introduced "direct physical evidence" as the one and only acceptable proof? That's another strawman for which you've had to make another illogical jump. What is being demanded is verifiable, repeatable evidence. That does not necessarily mean physical evidence.

Apparently, you didn't even the results of the analysis. Taking into consideration, the background lighting conditions easily determined that the object was nowhere near the camera nor even near the property.




Please let the experts know because after all of these years, they remain a mystery!

McMinnville UFO Photos
50 Years Later - Still A Mystery

http://www.rense.com/general/mcmin50.htm

I might add that a similar UFO was filmed in another country as well.