Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The best evidence for aliens on Earth
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128
hazzard
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 12:03 PM) *
There has always been physical evidence. I fact, a former associate of J. Allen Hynek has been revealing results of physical evidence taken at UFO landing sites.



Greate, this is exactly what I have been asking for, REAL evidence of ET, lets see it.
skyeagle409
Three different airline crews report UFO sightings over China
Agence France Press (in Sydney Morning Herald), Nov. 8, 2002

Summary: Several airline pilots have reported sighting a shining unidentified flying object (UFO) near the south-eastern Chinese city of Nanjing, a newspaper reported yesterday (11/7/02).

Several airline pilots have reported sighting a shining unidentified flying object (UFO) near the south-eastern Chinese city of Nanjing, a newspaper reported yesterday.

The first sighting was reported by a Xiamen Airlines pilot on Monday, who said he saw a light blue object hovering past his plane while 80km north of Nanjing, the Wen Wei Po daily reported.

At the same time, pilots of a Shandong Airline aircraft, which was some 120km away from the Xiamen airlines plane, also reported a similar sighting. They described the UFO as being a white-blue skateboard-shaped craft.

A pilot from another airplane, about 300km away, also reported a similar sighting to an airport control tower in Tonglu in Zhejiang province.

In recent years, China has witnessed a surge in UFO sightings.
REBEL
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 09:33 PM) *
There has always been physical evidence. I fact, a former associate of J. Allen Hynek has been revealing results of physical evidence taken at UFO landing sites. In addition, radar data is also concidered evidence, which can be used in a court of law.

SE, I thought it was already cleared up about Hynek(?)

He stated when he was almost at deaths door...


As Hynek himself said in October 1978:

"I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home."



Maybe he was looking for salvation (forgive me 'o lord) or something in his twilight years for spinning too much disinformation throughout his career?
skyeagle409
QUOTE (hazzard @ May 9 2008, 11:20 AM) *
Are you saying that you have such cases, were there is real physical evidence, but you wont show us?


Just some of the cases involving UFO landing sites.

http://www.cybercityradio.com/html/tedphillips.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...as/1.html#intro


http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/case110.htm


And, I have already presented radar data on UFOs; that same kind of data that can be used in a court of law.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (REBEL @ May 9 2008, 12:30 PM) *
SE, I thought it was already cleared up about Hynek(?)

He stated when he was almost at deaths door...


As Hynek himself said in October 1978:

"I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home."



Maybe he was looking for salvation (forgive me 'o lord) or something in his twilight years for spinning too much disinformation throughout his career?


Since he made the remark, a number of countries, government and former government workers, scientist, engineers, commercial and military pilots, radar experts, military officers and enlisted personnel and even some of the astronauts have come forward that the UFOs in question are those of ET.

And now, Russian generals and cosmonauts have now confirmed that the UFOs in question, are in fact, very real.
skyeagle409
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's Interview On Roswell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ByWlRZlq0...;watch_response

NigelTM
QUOTE (The Silver Thong @ May 9 2008, 12:36 AM) *
Ok a quote from NigelTM

"You the believers are the ones making the claims, and so yes, it is up to you to back up your claims."

So a skeptic can claim it was a plasma event or an atmospheric anomaly or some other sort of phenomina? You make that claim now suppot it ! Wow it only works one way now, go freakin figure....

Not quite. If I'm making a counterclaim that a UFO is some atmospheric anomaly, or even the reincarnation of Elvis, I should be able to back that up. But it's not necessary for me to.

Put another way, let's take the example of a court case. Believers are akin to the plaintiff, since you're bringing the case (making the claim), and skeptics are the defendants. The defendant has nothing to prove, even though he will often take the stand and offer an explanation for why the prosecution is wrong.

Just as with the court defendant, many skeptics will work to find an explanation (take the stand), but, and this is important, can't find one because many UFO cases are unexplained for a variety of reasons. There may be insufficient information, witnesses may be unreliable (or unable to accurately describe what they've seen), or it may not have happened at all.

So it really comes back to the one making the claim to back it up. It's that simple. The burden of proof is on the claimant, whether or not the claim is about flying saucers, or witnessing a crime in a doughnut shop.

Edit for clarification.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (NigelTM @ May 9 2008, 01:15 PM) *
Just as with the court defendant, many skeptics will work to find an explanation (take the stand), but, and this is important, can't find one because many UFO cases are unexplained for a variety of reasons. There may be insufficient information, witnesses may be unreliable (or unable to accurately describe what they've seen), or it may not have happened at all.


In the UFO cases files in question, there's more than enough information from highly reliable witnesses and radar data that verified the crafts were intelligently controlled and exhibited technology unknown to us as evident by the fact that the radar data verified the eyewitness accounts.
hazzard
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 01:36 PM) *
I have already presented radar data on UFOs; that same kind of data that can be used in a court of law.


There seem to be some missunderstanding here. A great deal more than your own personal conclusion, as the jury in a court of law. The standard for your own personal proof can vary, but the standard for scientific proof is much higher.

Knight of the Twilight
Unfortunately, there is none.
hazzard
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 01:00 PM) *
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's Interview On Roswell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ByWlRZlq0...;watch_response


Not to take away anything from a true hero, what they did on Apollo was unimaginable, but Ed Mitchell is only human, like the rest of us. We believe all sorts of weird things for witch there is no scientific evidence for what so ever. Remember, he said that he believed that there was an alien craft that crashed in Roswell.

Mitchell also says that a teenage remote healer who lives in Vancouver helped heal him of kidney cancer at a distance..(!)


FireMoon
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in Fairies so i take you think fingerprints being unique is just a myth as well? Isaac Newton was a firm believer in Astrology, so i take it you think all his maths are bunk as well?
Stellar
QUOTE
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in Fairies so i take you think fingerprints being unique is just a myth as well? Isaac Newton was a firm believer in Astrology, so i take it you think all his maths are bunk as well?


So I take it we should believe Astrology to be fact because Newton, a scientist, believes in it?
Stellar
QUOTE
By what you had said, means that you have finally ackknowedged that the UFOs in question are real.


I have never dismissed the UFO phenomena. They are what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects. Anything in the are that seems to be flying, that you can not identify, is a UFO, whether its a craft or some sort of natural phenomena or something else. Now, answer my question.
NigelTM
QUOTE (FireMoon @ May 9 2008, 12:10 PM) *
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in Fairies so i take you think fingerprints being unique is just a myth as well? Isaac Newton was a firm believer in Astrology, so i take it you think all his maths are bunk as well?

One has nothing to do with the other.
FireMoon
Ah but it does Nigel... Time and time again the veracity of a person's character, overall, is snidely challenged by association. Bob Lazar can't be trusted, in part, because he owned shares in a Brothel? What? Now we can't trust an Astronaut because he believes in faith healing.

This is a constant tactic of the debunkers to not only criticise the person's theories but attack them in a snide manner, as people.

With regards to Shag Harbour, one well known sceptic referred to one of the main protagonists as a "certified loony". That person has never once apologised for calling someone with a terminal disease a lunatic. By the way, a disease they were not suffering from when they presented their evidence on the incident

So lets quit this snide remarks about people because, if you really want to take it in that direction some very eminent scientist believed , and probably still do, in some seemingly ridiculous notions. That doesn't preclude them from having a deep and true insight into another area.

After all, both Napoleon and Hitler made comments along the lines that. Europe, until it is united in some way, will be forever condemned to endless wars that will, eventually lead to it's downfall. Just because they were wrong about a rake loads of other things, doesn't mean everything they said was rubbish.
NigelTM
FireMoon, let's clear up a couple of misconceptions, shall we?

1) The bit about Bob Lazar in your quote is called a strawman argument. You brought him up in order to knock down a nonexistent point. What does he have to do with this? Who said he can't be trusted because he owned shares in a brothel? Not me.

2) Attacking the person, and not the argument is called an ad hominem argument, and is typically considered to be unfair. While undoubtedly it does happen on both sides, there's no call for it. You seem to imply I've done it, and I haven't. I've attacked arguments, but not gotten personal here.

3) Who is this "well known sceptic" who called a person a "certified loony"? And how is that relevant to this topic about the best evidence for aliens on earth?

4) You say, "So lets quit this snide remarks about people because, if you really want to take it in that direction some very eminent scientist believed , and probably still do, in some seemingly ridiculous notions." What sort of snide remarks are you accusing me of?

5) When have I dismissed everything anyone said?

It seems to me you're engaging in a bit of ad hom yourself, something you say should be avoided.
hazzard
QUOTE (FireMoon @ May 9 2008, 05:01 PM) *
What? Now we can't trust an Astronaut because he believes in faith healing.


If your going to quote me then do it right. I also said, in that same post...

QUOTE
Ed Mitchell is only human, like the rest of us. We believe all sorts of weird things for witch there is no scientific evidence for what so ever.

Remember, he said that he believed that there was an alien craft that crashed in Roswell.


I have no problem with peoples beliefs, but when someone say that they have irrefutable, hard scientific evidence that there are alien starships flying around all over the world..... Well, thats something else.
FireMoon
Nigel that wasn't aimed at you at all. Why you should think it was i have no idea. I was merely pointing out that sceptics have along history of when, running out of things to criticise scientifically, resorting to snide personal remarks. They also can be most patronising...oh...
hazzard
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 12:36 PM) *
Just some of the cases involving UFO landing sites.

http://www.cybercityradio.com/html/tedphillips.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...as/1.html#intro


http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/case110.htm


Thanks for the links sky, Ill have a look at them when I come back, right now Im off to Stockholm.


bee
While we are on the subject of Apollo astronauts...

I have a mind-bending YouTube video for you.

OK......The Title of the video is..Ancient Structure on the Moon Filmed by Armstrong 1969

Take a look before you dismiss it out of hand....

The person who posted it is NAlexo....who only posted this ONE video on YouTube.

The possibilities for this video is 1 complete hoax. 2 genuine video obtained from somewhere
and posted by someone unknown.....or....3 genuine video posted by Armstrong himself.

Note user-name of poster...NAlexo......NA.....Neil Armstrong? I looked up lexo in the dictionary...there
are only 3 words starting with lex and thy all pertain to the greek word lexis... word.

After watching the video it is interesting to go to the full list of comments and read
what 'NAlexo' says....there's a couple of hundred...but I just scrolled down to 'NAlexo's' ones and
any that he was linking HIS comments to.

Now.....I tried to link directly to the video....but I couldn't get it to come up...maybe it's to do with it
being 'feature related'...????

So...I have linked to a page where the said video can be found....on the right where related videos are.

It's 4.36 minutes long......



YOUTUBE PAGE WHERE LINK CAN BE FOUND




skyeagle409
QUOTE (hazzard @ May 9 2008, 03:36 PM) *
There seem to be some missunderstanding here. A great deal more than your own personal conclusion, as the jury in a court of law. The standard for your own personal proof can vary, but the standard for scientific proof is much higher.


I might add that scientific investgations have confirmed many UFO case files as reported and many of those cases were documented by scientist themselves, astronomers and engineers included.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (hazzard @ May 9 2008, 05:41 PM) *
Thanks for the links sky, Ill have a look at them when I come back, right now Im off to Stockholm.


Have fun!

In addtion to slowing its velocity, not many people were aware of other things in regards to that craft.
NigelTM
QUOTE (FireMoon @ May 9 2008, 01:39 PM) *
Nigel that wasn't aimed at you at all. Why you should think it was i have no idea. I was merely pointing out that sceptics have along history of when, running out of things to criticise scientifically, resorting to snide personal remarks. They also can be most patronising...oh...

I thought it was aimed at me because you said....

QUOTE (FireMoon)
Ah but it does Nigel... Time and time again the veracity of a person's character, overall, is snidely challenged by association. Bob Lazar can't be trusted, in part, because he owned shares in a Brothel? What? Now we can't trust an Astronaut because he believes in faith healing.

Since you had my name in your post, and no one else's, I naturally assumed you were talking to me. If you weren't, and I misunderstood your intent, then I apologize for my part in that misunderstanding. Might I suggest you address the people you're referring to more specifically in the future?
skyeagle409
QUOTE (hazzard @ May 9 2008, 04:05 PM) *
Not to take away anything from a true hero, what they did on Apollo was unimaginable, but Ed Mitchell is only human, like the rest of us. We believe all sorts of weird things for witch there is no scientific evidence for what so ever. Remember, he said that he believed that there was an alien craft that crashed in Roswell.


Yes, Edgar Mitchell does believe that an alien craft did crash near Roswell, but so did a commanding officer of Wright-Patterson AFB when he said.

QUOTE


* "Everyone from the White House on down knew that what we had found was not of this world within 24 hours of our finding it."

* ".Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space."

General Arthur Exon, Forming Commanding Officer, Wright-Patterson AFB
Whitley Strieber commentary on ABC UFO special, Feb. 25, 2005


,


In addition, others at Wright-Patterson AFB have confirmed the Roswell debris was not from any aircraft and, Wright-Patterson AFB is where Senator Barry Goldwater was turned down when He sought to take a look at alien technology and where Air Force personnel stated that some UFOs were "interplanetary spaceships."
skyeagle409
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 9 2008, 04:21 PM) *
I have never dismissed the UFO phenomena. They are what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects. Anything in the are that seems to be flying, that you can not identify, is a UFO, whether its a craft or some sort of natural phenomena or something else. Now, answer my question.


Oh yes you can!!!

What does an aircraft have that flying saucers don't? Rotor blades, propellers and compressor blades. Ever wondered how significant that is on pulse-doppler radars? Ever wondered why stealth aircraft have their compressor blades hidden? Ever wondered why it is not good to build windmills near radar antennas?

Since aircrews had also visually identified the UFOs as machines, not plasma, then we can discharge the UFO tag and place the flying saucer tag in its place and as radar operators will tell you, they can differentiate between aircraft, birds, and radar "ghost angels" and other natural atmosperic phenomena.

Now, it comes down to this:

Do we have any flying saucers capable of 40-80+ G maneuvers and hypersonic flight without producing any sonic booms?

If not, then they are not ours.
skyeagle409
QUOTE
Scientist-Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Reaffirms ET Visits To Earth Are Real


I AM an American astronaut and a trained scientist. Because of my position people in high places confide in me. And, as a result, I have no doubt that aliens HAVE visited this planet.

The American government and governments throughout the world have thousands of files of UFO sightings which cannot be explained. As a scientist, it is logical to me that at least some of these will have been witness of alien craft.

As a former astronaut, the military people who have access to these files are more willing to talk to me than to people they regard as mere cranks.


.


Astronaut Edgar Mitchell is just confirrming what other highy credible people around the world have been asserting for years; that ET visititation is a reality.
Stellar
QUOTE
Oh yes you can!!! I


What? Yes I can what?

QUOTE
What does an aircraft have that flying saucers don't? Rotor blades, propellers and compressor blades. Ever wondered how significant that is on pulse-doppler radars? Ever wondered why stealth aircraft have their compressor blades hidden? Ever wondered why it is not good to build windmills near radar attenaes?


What does that have to do with *anything* I said?

QUOTE
Since aircrews had also visually identified the UFOs as machines, not plasma, then we can discharge the UFO tag and place the flying saucer tag in its place.


Once again, a flying saucer is an object, no? So It still falls in the UFO category.

QUOTE
Do we have any flying saucers capable of 40-80+ G maneuvers and hypersonic flight without producing any sonic booms?


Assuming that its not some natural phenomena, that it is an artificially constructed craft... so what? You still cant prove that it belongs to ET.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 9 2008, 06:22 PM) *
What? Yes I can what? What does that have to do with *anything* I said?


What does it have to do with what you have been saying???

That you don't understand a single thing about the nature of radar nor understood what I have been asserting in regards to radar technology.
NigelTM
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 9 2008, 02:06 PM) *
Do we have any flying saucers capable of 40-80+ G maneuvers and hypersonic flight without producing any sonic booms?

I'm very interested in the physics behind being able to move through the air without disturbing it. Are there any realistic theories how that can be done? I guess even unrealistic theories, but I'm looking for information from credible sources.

I guess one problem I have with the alleged alien spacecraft theory is combining "magical" technology (no sonic booms, for instance) with mundane technology we already have (multi-colored lights). IMO, it stands to reason that if they have fanciful gadgets like anti-gravity, or things we can only dream of, why do they use (what appears to us) everyday luminescence?
FireMoon
No problems Nigel.. I used your name becasue i replying to something you specifically mentioned.

I've said it before but i will reiterate it here. I am constantly disappointed with how Ufology seems to have become the preserve a small cartel of talknig heads vis a vie its' public persona. I understand why that should be so but i do sometimes think that the people involved should turn down the opportunity to act as spokesperson for whatever side of the argument and force the media to do some of the work for itself.

I, along with several colleagues, have turned down, on quite few occasions, the offer to appear on TV to discuss the subject when the producers of the programmes involved made it clear that all they really wanted was a bun fight between two gobby proponents of both camps. There was no intent on having a reasoned discussion it was wholly about seeing *blood on the carpet*. One reason for this, in Britain anyway, is that the broadcasting laws were enshrined with a wholly christian, with a small c, tenet at their base. As such, anything which might seem to contradict the status quo of Edwardian ideals i, legally, only allowed to be discussed in a light hearted manner.


A recently as 10 years ago, a British DJ, Nicky Campbell, was hauled across the carpet by the the BBC for taking Ufology, as a subject, seriously on his chat show. It wasn't even his own bosses who sought to discipline the guy either, it was one of those diktats passed down from *on high* by someone who, to this day, remains nameless.

The growth of the internet allows people, worldwide, to come together to discuss the subject on a far more open basis. That being said, there are many incidents, that because of the mass media's attitude that do not actually have the *conventional* explanation behind them that many people might think they had.

Someone like Sky has posted links to many of these cases that were, often, dismissed in the public media at the time, that turn out to have a whole lot more about them that is worth considering.

Ergo, when i see comments like... "No astronomer has ever reported a UFO sighting" trotted out on this forum, i am pretty certain that the person posting such thoughts, has done absolutely no work whatsoever themselves and is relying solely on the writings of a small cadre of vocal sceptics. That is, they have no real interest in discussing the phenomenon, but for whatever personal reasons, don;t want anyone else to think there might be something behind it all, either.

To my mind the likes of David Icke and Philip Klass are different sides of the same coin. Whilst Ufology is dominated by *personalities* and not science we will get nowhere fast, as neither of these protagonists is ever going admit anything the other says is possible. Meanwhile informed research is left behind as both sides seek to travel ever more *out there8 in order to spike each others guns.

I asked for a link to a page other than that of the Norwegian Lights project to give credence to their explanation. I said it might well have legs, i personally do not believe those sightings are ET at all. Didn't get one though and i cannot find one myself. But hey that's fine, apart from. The people who champion the *plasma* explanation are often the first people to demand some universally accepted scientific paper when the boot is on the other foot.

That is hypocrisy and to my mind, suggests that there are a goodly number of people who call themselves sceptics on here who have no agenda, other than, liking the sound of their own voices. I don't for one minute suggest there aren't those from the *believers side* who are exactly the same. To be honest, as already stated, I am sick of both camps constantly hamstringing serious investigation and debate.

NigelTM
QUOTE (FireMoon @ May 9 2008, 02:38 PM) *
[snip]when the producers of the programmes involved made it clear that all they really wanted was a bun fight between two gobby proponents of both camps. There was no intent on having a reasoned discussion it was wholly about seeing *blood on the carpet*. One reason for this, in Britain anyway, is that the broadcasting laws were enshrined with a wholly christian, with a small c, tenet at their base. As such, anything which might seem to contradict the status quo of Edwardian ideals i, legally, only allowed to be discussed in a light hearted manner.

I can't address the British mindset, but certainly the same thing happens in the US, and the simple explanation is....ratings.
QUOTE
The growth of the internet allows people, worldwide, to come together to discuss the subject on a far more open basis. That being said, there are many incidents, that because of the mass media's attitude that do not actually have the *conventional* explanation behind them that many people might think they had.

I agree to an extent, however, like most things, it's a double-edged sword, and so since it's more open, there's more chaff, and so critical thinking becomes ever more important (and sadly, more lacking) to separate the wheat from that chaff.
QUOTE
Someone like Sky has posted links to many of these cases that were, often, dismissed in the public media at the time, that turn out to have a whole lot more about them that is worth considering.

Worth considering...I won't disagree. But still no proof.
Stellar
QUOTE
What does it have to do with what you have been saying???

That you don't understand a single thing about the nature of radar nor understood what I have been asserting in regards to radar technology.


I didnt even bring UP radar in what you quoted me! Try to catch up!

And once again, you still have to prove that its ET.
bee
QUOTE (FireMoon @ May 9 2008, 06:01 PM) *
Time and time again the veracity of a person's character, overall, is snidely challenged by association. Bob Lazar can't be trusted, in part, because he owned shares in a Brothel? What? Now we can't trust an Astronaut because he believes in faith healing.

This is a constant tactic of the debunkers to not only criticise the person's theories but attack them in a snide manner, as people.


That's where the anonymity of the internet is a two-edged sword, I think.....people who are
public figures....can have all their dirty washing dragged out into the public arena....but posters
on a forum...are....safe from actual scrutiny.....so they can pontificate until the cows come home...
posing as what ever character or persona they wish.....where as in reality who knows what they
are REALLY like.....or whether they have shares in dubious enterprises....or worse!!! ohmy.gif
GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN
Hi sorry not posted in a while. Had things to do! I heard recently that Robbie Williams had ditched his singing, looking for UFO'S in the sky... Well if what many people are saying here is true, he is wasting his time...



Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN
skyeagle409
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 9 2008, 06:55 PM) *
I didnt even bring UP radar in what you quoted me! Try to catch up!


Yes I did bring it up and did so for a very good reason. Aircraft have compressor and rotor blades, and propellers, which present different frequency signatures back to the radar anttenna depending on the type of blades used in different types of jet engines, and as one radar expert had said, they can dffierentiate between natural phenomena and real solid objects and even birds, and there is this thing known in radar circles as "cross-section."
skyeagle409
QUOTE (GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN @ May 9 2008, 07:58 PM) *
Hi sorry not posted in a while. Had things to do! I heard recently that Robbie Williams had ditched his singing, looking for UFO'S in the sky... Well if what many people are saying here is true, he is wasting his time...


On the contrary, otherr nations have already revealed that they are real, so he is on the right track.
Stellar
QUOTE
Yes I did bring it up and did so for a very good reason. Aircraft have compressor and rotor blades, and propellers, which present different frequency signatures back to the radar anttenna depending on the type of blades used in different types of jet engines, and as one radar expert had said, they can dffierentiate between natural phenomena and real solid objects and even birds, and there is this thing known in radar circles as "cross-section."


Yes... but what does that have to do with what I said about UFOs? I said anything can be a UFO as long as its seen flying in the air and it is not identified.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (NigelTM @ May 9 2008, 06:36 PM) *
I'm very interested in the physics behind being able to move through the air without disturbing it. Are there any realistic theories how that can be done? I guess even unrealistic theories, but I'm looking for information from credible sources.


I have heard theories, but no one really knowns, otherwise, we would have already figured it out. What we do have, is proof that the objects exceeded the speed of sound and not produced any sonic booms. In fact, an object was tracked over the Washington D.C. area doing 7200 mph and no sonic boom noted.

QUOTE


Hypersonic UFOs

Barnes quickly checked the consoles; both scopes showed the strange blips. He called in radar technicians; they found no flaw in the set or antenna. Worried, though the low speeds didn't indicate Soviet bombers, he called the Washington Airport tower. To handle local traffic, the tower has a separate set, an A.S.R. (Airport Surveillance Radar) with a 30 mile range.

Tower operators Howard Cocklin and Joe Zacko both reported the strange blips on their scope, and in the same position. So did Air Force radar men at Andrews Air Force Base, which uses an A.S.R. set. Not only that, visual observers at both points could see mysterious lights moving in the sky.

Flashing word to Air Defense, Barnes turned back to the scope. The unknown visitors had separated, were now over Washington, two near the White House, one close to the Capitol.

A few minutes later, the controllers bending over the scope got a new jolt. One blip track showed an abrupt 90- degree turn, something no plane could do. As the sweep came around, another of the strange objects suddenly reversed, its new blip "blossoming" on top of the one it bad previously made. The unknown craft, or whatever it was, had stopped dead from over 100 m.p.h., then completely reversed direction - all in about five seconds.

"Then we noticed another strange thing," Barnes told me later. "Some blips suddenly disappeared, between sweeps. I couldn't explain, until Jim Ritchey called 'Casey' Pierman to check on one group of the things."

Captain Pierman, flying a Capital airliner, had just taken off from Washington. In a few moments he radioed back that he saw a bright light where the scope showed one of the objects. At the very instant he called the Center, the object raced off at terrific speed.

"It was almost as if whatever controlled it had heard us, or had seen Pierman head toward it," said Barnes. "He said it vanished from sight in three to five seconds. But here's the important point: at that very moment, the blip disappeared from the scope.

"That means it must have raced out of our beam between ten second sweeps. It could have done this in one of two ways: First, it could make a steep climb at terrific speed, so that in ten seconds it would be above the vertical area swept by our M.E.W. set. [The beam's average altitude, at its highest point, is from 35,000 to 40,000 feet, far out, but it is much less near the airport. At 30 miles, it is about 8,500 feet, sloping to 1,200 at three miles.] Second, it could race horizontally off our 34 mile scope within ten seconds."

Considering the objects' relative position, just before they vanished, this last would require a speed of from 5,000 to 7,000 m.p.h. At the time, this seemed unbelievable to Barnes and the other controllers. But Captain Pierman later confirmed the objects' tremendous speed.

"They'd go up and down at terrific speed, or streak off and disappear. Between Washington and Martinsburg, we saw six of these fast moving lights. [Control Center showed them at the same position.] I don't know what they were, but they weren't shooting stars."

Another confirmation of the visitors' incredible speed came later that night, from the Washington tower. Operator Joe Zacko had been watching the A.S.R. scope when one of the mystery objects abruptly appeared just west of Andrews Field. Unlike the slower M.E.W., the A.S.R., with its 28-r.p.m. antenna, can track extremely high speeds. As Zacko watched, fascinated, the blips made a bright streak or trail, heading north- northeast toward Riverdale. Then the trail ended as swiftly as it had come.

Howard Cocklin, hastily called over by Zacko, also saw the bright trail. Together they figured the object's speed from its trace.

It had been making two miles per second -7,200 m.p.h.

"It was as if it had descended rapidly, almost vertically," Cocklin told me later. "That would bring it suddenly into the A.S.R. beam area. It seemed to level off for those few seconds, and then abruptly ascend out of the beam again."

.


QUOTE
I guess one problem I have with the alleged alien spacecraft theory is combining "magical" technology (no sonic booms, for instance) with mundane technology we already have (multi-colored lights). IMO, it stands to reason that if they have fanciful gadgets like anti-gravity,...


There are those who are working on the so-called "fanciful," and there were those who once tagged the idea of an airplane as fanciful.


August 13, 2003

NASA Anti-Gravity Experiment Due to Start

NASA's continuing interest in exotic propulsion will soon result in another test of the controversial Podkletnov device which consists of a spinning superconducting disc that results in .5% to 2% weight reduction of anything placed above it.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 10 2008, 04:54 AM) *
Yes... but what does that have to do with what I said about UFOs?


What did you say about radar and plasma? And, what did I say about the UFOs in question, which were visually identified as flying saucers?
Stellar
QUOTE
What did you say about radar and plasma? And, what did I say about the UFOs in question, which were visually identified as flying saucers?


Then quote me when Im talking about radar and plasma, dont just take some completely irrelevant quote. Oh, by the way, plasma can cause a variety of returned frequencies.

Anyway, why dont you answer my question that I asked? How can you differentiate between ET and time travelers? They both fit the data the same exact way.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 10 2008, 05:51 AM) *
Then quote me when Im talking about radar and plasma, dont just take some completely irrelevant quote.


I tell you what, why don't you post your own comments on UFOs and plasma, so there won't be any misunderstanding.
anarkhy
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 10 2008, 01:50 AM) *
On the contrary, otherr nations have already revealed that they are real, so he is on the right track.



But none of this countries have provided a strong evidence that ufos are machines and not ghosts. They should present at least some pictures or videos which no one could debunk.





anarkhy
QUOTE (Stellar @ May 10 2008, 02:51 AM) *
Then quote me when Im talking about radar and plasma, dont just take some completely irrelevant quote. Oh, by the way, plasma can cause a variety of returned frequencies.

Anyway, why dont you answer my question that I asked? How can you differentiate between ET and time travelers? They both fit the data the same exact way.



How can you differentiate plasma from ghosts? How can you say those lights in sky are not from interplanetary ghosts and not just plasma?


Here is a good example of plasma link, now how that fits with people have been reporting? I dont see this plasma flying at high speed or chasing aircrafts...

NigelTM
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 10 2008, 01:23 AM) *
I have heard theories, but no one really knowns, otherwise, we would have already figured it out. What we do have, is proof that the objects exceeded the speed of sound and not produced any sonic booms. In fact, an object was tracked over the Washington D.C. area doing 7200 mph and no sonic boom noted.

Again with the 1952 DC flap, which isn't proof. Show me examples of a nuts and bolts craft, or at least point me to where I can read about some of these theories on my own. Are they published in objective literature/websites? My limited brain power can't comprehend how it's possible to move through liquid without disturbing it, as would apparently be necessary to break the sound barrier without causing a sonic boom.
QUOTE
There are those who are working on the so-called "fanciful," and there were those who once tagged the idea of an airplane as fanciful.

True, but absolutely irrelevant. Here is information about the Interplanetary Internet. That's "fanciful", and even interesting, but has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. See? I can do that too. Doesn't mean a thing.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (anarkhy @ May 10 2008, 10:04 AM) *
But none of this countries have provided a strong evidence that ufos are machines and not ghosts. They should present at least some pictures or videos which no one could debunk.


Here are some of the thousands and thousands.

QUOTE

France Releases UFO Files


http://z.about.com/d/ufos/1/0/s/2/-/-/francefilesufo.jpg



Belgium

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/ufobelg.jpg



Brazil

[font="Times New Roman"]The nation of Brazil is relaxing its policy of UFO secrecy. It is the first among a number of countries known to be considering the idea of abandoning the secrecy mandate that has been in place worldwide since the phenomenon first began to be publicly known nearly fifty years ago. A.J. Gevaerd of the Brazilian Committee of UFO Researchers reports that a number of important files have just been released, including a folder containing documents from 1977 that cover dozens of cases of UFOs in the Amazon with over 100 pictures made during Operation Saucer, an official Brazilian military investigation that was carried out between September and December, 1977."

The President of Brazil went public over this sighting after analysis were completed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWh_Ev0UekM




Mexico

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBc5Fv4xFIo




United States

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6821482599776880969


http://ufocasebook.com/best/oregontrentlarge.jpg




Nellis UFO Shows Up Over Brazil

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/SaoPaulo.avi


NigelTM
You're misleading us with at least the "France Releases UFO Files" tag. That's an image of.....something. No conclusion can be drawn from that image, because among other things, there is no frame of reference.

With a link like you mentioned, I at least expected a news report detailing how France was releasing their files.

Poor, Sky. Very poor.
skyeagle409
QUOTE (NigelTM @ May 10 2008, 02:51 PM) *
You're misleading us with at least the "France Releases UFO Files" tag. That's an image of.....something. No conclusion can be drawn from that image, because among other things, there is no frame of reference.


Is that object a flying saucer or a B -747? Connect the dots to form a picture.

QUOTE

Taking into account the facts that we have gathered from the observers and from the location of their observations, we concluded that there generally can be said to be a material phenomenon behind the observations. In 60% of the cases reported here, the description of this phenomenon is apparently one of a flying machine whose origin, modes of lifting and/or propulsion are totally outside our knowledge.

Dr. Claude Poher, Ph.D. in astronomy, founder and first director of GEPAN, the UFO investigative office under the French government's National Center for Space Sciences which analyzed reports from the Gendarmerie from 1974 through 1978, writing in the GEPAN Report to the Scientific Committee, June, 1978, Vol 1, Chapter 4

Stellar
QUOTE
I tell you what, why don't you post your own comments on UFOs and plasma, so there won't be any misunderstanding.


I already did. Why wont you stop avoiding my question? Insecure about it? Does it put you in your uncomfortable zone?
NigelTM
QUOTE (skyeagle409 @ May 10 2008, 11:20 AM) *
Is that object a flying saucer or a B -747? Connect the dots to form a picture.

Why do you persist in offering a false dichotomy? Why does it have to either a flying saucer or a B-747? (Or a Piper Cub, for that matter? It could be a manipulated image...a fake in other words.)

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.