Bee...

That video's been discussed here at some length (another thread).
Without getting into all the details (and there are plenty which illustrate it's lack of authenticity)...it's an utter fabrication.

Since you are avoiding the issue, the question was:

Was plasma responsible for any of the UFO case files in question? The answer was no, but you persisted in throwing in the plasma thing, so I threw in the compressor and rotor blades to make my point that different objects present different signatures, which was evident you were not aware of.

And, the UFOs in question do not have compressor nor rotor blades and plasma were excluded more than 40 years ago, even by UFO debunker, Phil Klass who first used it to debunk UFOs but he was forced to change his official position.

I'll take things explained by plasma for $100, Alex.

I had you pegged right on the money in regards to your response and waited for the right moment, which I knew would come!

I am waiting for a skeptic to claim that a flying plasma TV was responsible for the UFO over the Malmstrom AFB missile fields in 1967. Sounds ridicules, but no more ridicules then their past claims; for an example, like the 3 UFOs that maneuvered around an aircraft, which was confirmed on radar, were Jupiter, Mars, and Venus.

The plasma thing hasnt been discussed for some 50 pages. I asked you a whole new set of questions, which you are seemingly avoiding. Perhaps you simply have problems with reading comprehension...

But if you wish to talk about plasma and radar again, alright. So... what does that have to do with plasma? What kind of particular radar signature do flying saucers and plasma provide as opposed to known craft, hmm?



Plasma doesnt have a compressor nor rotor blades either.

Are you claiming that radar can identify whether an aircraft has rotor blades?

And furthermore, on the plasma issue, why was plasma excluded from all UFO cases 40 years ago? Let me lead you to your error. On what basis was it excluded, hmm?



Now, answer MY question sky. How can you differentiate between an alien craft, and a human craft from the future?

Stellar I was wondering if you could provide some info on exactly what plasma in the atmosphere is capable of. I think a few here would like to know that. Is plasma visible to the human eye? can plasma travel at supersonic speeds? Does plasma change direction with the wind/atmosphere? Is plasma a solid, liquid, gas, energy ect. What is plasma capable of doing to make it appear as a "ufo"? I'm not being picky, I just want to know about plasma and your convictions that plasma could be the reason behind some of the ufo question.

Oh come off it, if countries can reveal that UFO's are real, then I am mickey mouse and Hazzard is Donald Duck. No offence here, but if there was TRUE evidence to suggest they existed, then why hasn't it shown up here? A carless comment there sky...


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

There just maybe real evidence as sky has many times posted,its all in the little black boxs at the back corner of a room at the lowest level of the darkest most secret gov,secret facility only know to the three Humans allowed to get in there.Try to prove me wrong?

It has and there are those wiithin our own intelligence and military servicesm in addition to government and former government workers who have already stated that the UFOs in question, are ET crafts.

And, it was the Air Force that first acknowledged that the UFOs in question, were real and not ours, and that was back during the late 1940's and in 1952.

BTW, I'll look you guys up the next time I visit Disneyland.

Nor, does it make intelligent maneuvers around aircraft, nor react intelligently to radar lock-ons. Besides, natural-occurring plasma is not what the aircrews reported.

Were you even aware of the scorn that was brought on by the Condign Report on UFOs and plasma in 2006 and that the MoD conned the public on plasma and UFOs, which is why plasma is now known as the "new swamp gas?? Not only did Phil Klass drop his plasma theory, but was also criticized by those iwthin the fields of physics for having to bring up plasma to explain away UFOs in the first place.

In short, the MoD dupped those on plasma and UFOs, and the Condign Report on plasma and UFOs was done in such a sloppy manner, that it too, has come under attack. Plasma was rejected more than 40 years ago as it is today, which is why those UFO case files in question remain unexplained terrestrially speaking to this very day and that is a hint the MoD dupped the public on plasma and UFOs.



A pulse-doppler radar can do just that. Ever wondered why the B-1 and B-2 bombers have their compressor blades hidden within their engine bays? If you look at the intakes of the F-117, it has screens covering its intakes. Here is something that I know you were unaware of in regards to radar technology.



Also, radar cross-section (RCS) plays a large part on what is displayed on the radar screen. For an example:



Do you remember when I posted comments from a radar expert where he said that experienced radar operators can easily identify birds, which are considered solid, natural phenomena, and metallic objects?



Plasma didn't fit the descriptions of flying machines that were being reported by highly experienced aircrews and credble ground--based witnesses and even UFO debunker, Phil Klass, admitted that he was dupped in regards to a hoaxed UFO photo supposedly depicting plasma that he used to debunk UFOs, not knowing that he was dupped until after a member of the Colorado Study team exposed the hoax.



Once again, the future isn't here yet, and I can put it in another way if you persist: how can you tell if the spacecraft are not those of aliens from the future?

If you know they have evidence then prove it! Show us some...... Oh wait, you would've already have done that, too bad!


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

This pretty much summed it up.



To sum that all up, the performance recorded on that object proves that the object could not have been of this earth.

------------------------------
adifodiuflksdoksu oiduhfksdj
------------------------------

. . . .. . . . ______________

Sorry, I'm trying to read between the lines and connect the dots, but I just can't seem to do it. Could you be a bit more clear, old boy? What is it you're trying to say?

I'll look for links later tonight or tomorrow when I have a chance. Most of my info comes from my knowledge of plasma because of the field I'm studying. Ill answer some of your questions now though.

Plasma is essentially a 4th state of matter, separate from solid, liquid and gas. (Energy is not a state of matter, btw). Plasma can be visible, yes, and can take on different formes, just like a solid can take on different formes. It also reacts strongly to EM radiation.

1. Aircrew testimony is not always available for different cases.
2. How do you define intelligent maneuvers and reacting intelligently to radar lock ons?



So you're claiming plasma can not be responsibl for any UFO cases whatsoever?



1. Can you give me a link to where you got that from?
2. Their blades are hidden in order to lower their Radar Cross Section. Havent them exposed increases their radar return.



Yes I do, but they filter these out by eliminating radar returns that arent strong enough to be aircraft. (THats actually the what the stealth aircraft rely on, because they do have a radar cross section, but it is small enough to be filtered out by the system that filters out birds). Plasma can have a radar cross section greater than a bird and similar to any sort of craft. Radar doesnt filter out "unknown" radar returns because then it would have filtered out the flying saucers you speak of too.



So that means plasma is not responsible for any UFO cases at all?



So what if the future isnt here yet? Thats completely irrelevant to the issue.

And to answer your question, I cant tell whether it belongs to aliens from the future or not, because it could be any number of things.

Those pictures are still too blurry, i was expecting something more concrete. I know they catch ufos on radar and send jets to intercept those things, so they must have pictures or videos.

About the president of brazil commenting about extraterrestrial, the guy was just giving his opinion about one event, and he can be mistaken.

The case of 1977, amazon ufos, is still intriguing and there is much more pictures and videos which were not revealed, but the fab refuses to give credibility to this story or his own personnel.

And, they do, but here's one that has been released to the public by the Air Force, and it wasn't a weather balloon that this aircraft had intercepted.

http://www.nicap.org/images/true3b.jpg




He did so only after scientific analysis confirmed that the flying saucer was in fact, a real object and the size of a jet fighter.

Reading between the lines!


__________________________

E <^> <^> <^> T
_________________

There are other things about air intercept radars and detections capabilities that I also know, you won't be able to find on the internet.

Coming from a family of aviators, I know as a fact that the majority of UFO encounters are not reported by pilots, so the thousands of aerial cases that are, are just a small fraction of the actual UFO encounters that have taken place in our skies over the years.



Because the object reacted each time it was locked and the maneuvers exclude aircraft.



I didn't say that, and remember, I have also mentioned that "earthquake lights" could have been responsible for some UFO sightings, but the UFO case files in question, had nothing to do with plasma.



I didn't get that from any website, it was something that I knew all along.



Exposed compressor blades and the insides of an engine intake, can send back a radar signature, loud and clear, back to the antenna of the radar to the aricraft that is painting the target.



Oh yes it can, and to where ONLY the return of the designated radar signature of the UFO remains on the radar screen in STT-mode, a mode which will blank out all other aircraft and anything else on the screen that is solid and in the local area.




It has been responsible for some UFO sightings, but not in the UFO case files in question.




Just goes to show that two can plain the say game when the other side employs "humans from the future" because "aliens from the future" can be added to the argument as well.

Nice one, skyeagle.....

Oh, I dont even have time to answer everything but I must comment on this!



Well, yeah, you can use it... but that just shows that they're not proven to be ET. Check mate.

That was good!

Okay, back to serious business.


I can accept those images are from motion picture film, but to my admittedly untrained eye, it's anything but definite that's a flying saucer. Can you post some context about that image (when/where/ by whom this was filmed)? Are those sprocket holes on the left? Or something that was filmed (a telephone pole for instance)? I ask because the top image doesn't have one, so maybe they're not sprocket holes. If not, then they're something else in the image.


Have you ever posted the scientific analysis the Brazilian president used to make that judgement? Can you please post it (again) so we can examine it?

Hey skyeagle,I failed math 101 whats the answer to this? E <^><^><^>T=Greater than or less than the combine disbelevers in here? Im guessing its answer is = to the facts there is way too many things in our universe to ever think for a minute we are alone.Keep-em-comeing DONTEATUS

This is one thing that really, really bothers me about the whole thing. Thousands of cases have been reported, and supposedly reliably, by air crews. So let's take your statement at face value, that thousands (millions? who knows?) of viewings of UFOs have gone unreported since the modern era began.

Why is there no absolute, incontrovertible evidence of ET?

I simply cannot buy the position that the governments of the world have hushed it all up, and are just beginning to disclose it all. Governments, any of them, just aren't that efficient to cover up every bit of evidence the world has ever had. Especially when non-governmental people (the Hills, Travis Walton, just to name two cases) have allegedly had direct contact with ET.

The best made plans of mice and men? Well here in " Lies" the problem. We only have to look at our present leaders of the world to know without a doubt we will only be told the truth when it either hits the front lawn of the white house with Physical proof,A real Ship a real E.T. a real Encounter. or We keep dreamin they are real. We will see it when we belive it.Sky again is doing a great job trying to show what we have in real reports and sightings.Prove them all wrong please.I bet that most are still proven as Unidentified! this in no way makes them not real.

Much of it is all in the data collection and much that information is being withheld by the government. For an example, some of it was leaked out by a senior FAA official regarding an incident that made headline news arround the globe. The CIA sought to cover-up that incident by confiscating the data and communication tapes, but some got by the CIA anyway and the tapes were eventually analyzed in Washington D.C., which confirmed the accounts of those involved.

The reason the FAA became involved was not only because the objects were visually confirmed and tracked on the radar systems of the FAA and of the Air Force, but because the objects violated airspace regulatons and created hazardous safety of flight conditions.

I might add that the FAA official was also told that the reason for the attempted cover-up was to not cause any panic, which is the primary reason for today's government cover-up on UFOs. The government sought to muzzle commercial pilots in regards to their UFO encounters by initating JANAP-146, which made a lot of commercial pilots very angry. In other words, the government doesn't want the public to know what has been going on in the skies above their heads, but there were still those pilots who took the risk to reveal what has been going on because the UFOs in question have created a safety-of-flight hazard to commercial and military air traffic.

KTVU-2 News, Oakland, CA., did a segment on pilot concerns about the UFOs in question and the risk those UFOs create several years ago. After my TDY trip to Andrews AFB in 1992, I was told of another UFO incident where we scrambled jets to intercept an UFO that left our high performance jets in the dust, but the public never knew about it because the Air Force doesn't like to reveal in public that our latest jets are far outmatched by those UFOs and that is why you never hear about such incidents and the reason I know about them is because I am in the right place and time to know what is going on that the public is unaware of and why I have been tenacious in stating that ET vistiation is a fact. which the public will eventually come to know as well.

Over the years, government leaks have been occurring often enough to where it has been determined that the UFOs are interested in our nuclear facilities here, and abroad. Now, the FOIA has confirmed that a flying saucer landed near Kirtland AFB, New Mexico and knocked out military and civilian radar systems in the area and later, it was determined that source of the interference was coming from the area where the UFO reportedly landed.

These are the kind of incidents that are being disclosed under the FOIA, which were kept hiddened from the eyes of the public and why I have been predicting that ET visitation will be revealed in 15 years or less, and I hoping in much less time than 15 years.



Over the years, a number of countries have come forward and revealing that the UFOs in question, are in fact, crafts under intelligent control, and I expect th trend to continue. It is far easier for a government official to simply say the crafts are unknown in public, because to do otherwise by stating they are those of ET, he won't get any sleep for days afterwards.

=Greater--------------------> <^>

As in more government leaks and information under the FOIA

I wouldn't say that! After all, look at who is winning the lotteries, and you will notice that they are being won by humans of the present.

Since humans of the future would have access to next week's winning numbers, it is clear that they are not involved since they would be taking advantage of their own greed.

That is hardly proof of anything.



1. Thats a supposition.
2. Can you tell me the lottery numbers of June 23rd, 1982?

Just because humans from the future arent winning at the lottery does not mean humans from the future dont travel back into our time.

Which means that we can do away with the humans of the future theory.

Why?

I really dont understand your reasoning... You can not prove that they are not humans from the future, therefore we can do away with the "humans from the future theory"? Why can we do away with them? This theory fits the data just as well as your ET theory... theres no reason to dismiss this possibility.

You said it yourself:

"That is hardly proof of anything."

That pretty much sums it up as far as humans from the future is concerned.

Im having a harder and harder time believing you were ever in any domain related to aviation. Generally, they require you to be able to comprehend what you read.

What did I write "That is hardly proof of anything" in response to, sky? It was in response to your argument against the time traveling humans theory... ie: You did not prove that it is not time traveling humans.

Jeez, do your homework next time.

In many cases, that is the way I respond to armchair debunkers because that is all they want to do and nothing else.

Okay firstly events now are well documented in many formats why would they come here as opposed to ancient antiquity
also if their clever enough to figure out how to travel back in time they should be clever enough to know not to use it

I just thought Id post a respons to Skyeagles armchair debunkers post.



To be a proper woo-woo/believer, you must follow these rules:

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

I am so glad you brought that up!!!



If you use Occam's Razor, you can use it in thousands of UFO case files since it has already beend determined that no aircraft of mankind could conduct the kind of maneuvers that were recorded, that after it was also determined that no natural phenomena was responsible. In other words the simplest explanation in those cases is the ETH!




If you check it out, the skeptics were the folks who claimed that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incdent after I told them it wasn't. In 1994, the Air Force admitted that no weather balloon was involved, which effectively put the skeptic's weather balloon claim to rest. And, Congress Steven Schiff had found from his own investigation that no balloon of any kind was responsible for the Roswell incident, only the skeptics are sticking to that obviously flawed claim.



Well, we all now know about mainstream science, don't we Hazzard.?! Mainstream science couldn't accept that rocks were falling from the sky, which we now know as meteors. In addition, we have these, which I have posted before, but is just right as a response in regards to mainstream science and its missteps on the UFO enigma over the years.

Radar data, and other evidence from UFO landing sites has gone far to answer lots of questions, which the skeptics dismissed. Could it be that scientific investigations could't pin a tag on any terrestrial explanation?! That is correct!!



The proof is, the skeptics were unable to deceipher what was presented and were unable to see the proof for what it is. For an example, the radar data on UFOs; it was very clear the skeptics had no idea what I was talking about and instead, ran to the websites and posted information that they didn't understand, and that was amusing when they began posting information for which they didn't understand nor were they aware of other issues regarding radar detection capabilities, some of which can't be found on the internet for obvious security reasons.

I like the following:



The unusual head movements of the close-mined skeptics came about after official documents were released under the FOIA, which revealed information that proved they were wrong.

I have repeatedly challenged the skeptics to refute the evidence on the case files in question as presented and they have tried to do so, and they thought that they had succeeded. I guess the skeptics were unaware as to why those case files remain unexplained to this very day and unaware as to why I posted only certain case files, which simply proves that they didn't succeed after all.

The skeptics in quesition were unaware that they were being setup!

Hmmmm!! Meaningless questions??? I have some meaningful questions:

* Why are skeptics still clinging to the idea that test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s were responsible for an incident in 1947?

* Why are skeptics still claiming that a Project Mogul balloon was involved in that incident.after it has already been proven beyond any doubt that no such balloon was reponsible?



Cornered by a skeptic??? They have proven here that they don't have the technological knowledge to know how to do it.

I have bookmarked your link, Hazzard, and thanks again! I plan to show the shortcomings of becoming a closed-minded skeptic and its disadvantages and you have provided me with the ammunition.

We all use our Inertial Dampeners every day when we come to a quick stop at the interscetions driveing our cars! "Hit The Brakes silly or get smashed" See there is reality in our world better start lookin for the Heart of Gold its got really ,really Big Inertial Dampeners on it! LoL DONTEATUS

What's amazing is that you say yourself the cases are unexplained, but then again, they're not unexplained....they're ET.

Explained, unexplained....I guess they both mean the same thing, eh?

Unexplained, terrestrially speaking.

Since we don't have hypersonic flying saucers that do not leave behind sonic booms because we haven't figured how to do it, is one example of what I mean.

If the UFOs are black projects, a la the SR71, U2, F-117A, etc., then I can understand withholding information. What I still don't understand is why the government would need to hide ET. It'd be like trying to withhold information on lightning.

Does that anonymous FAA official have any corroborating evidence?

Was NORAD involved?

Hearsay.

Over many, many years these leaks have been coming out.....yet it didn't take long for other secrets to come about like the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran/Contra, so why shouldn't the government own up to it? Polls have been posted here to indicate the panic scenario is most likely B.S. To quote 50 year old data to that effect is akin to saying that people today would be scared of television just because people in the 18th century have never seen it.

Those aircraft had nothing to do with the UFOs in quesiton. In fact, the U-2 was explained away as a high altitude weather aircraft during the 1950s and all of
the other aircraft are not saucer-shaped nor capable of flying at supersonic speeds and not leave behind a sonic boom much less, hover siliently.



They fear panic in the streets of public. JANAP-146 was designed to muzzle pilots who encountered UFOs in flight.



He brought the tapes and documentation with him to the Disclosure Proejct.



The objects were also tracked on the radar system of the Air Force as well. Here is an example of NORAD's involvement in UFO trackings, which has been evident in documents under the FOIA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C94aMTeu_Qw




Yes it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened.



Once again, there is the fear factor. On another note, the government does keep secrets for a very long time.





I believe the public can handle the truth, but the government doesn't think so.

I'm not claiming they had anything to do with the "UFOs in question"....so you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that black projects have had a history of being withheld by the gov't. At one time, these planes were black projects, so they were withheld, which makes sense.

The Warren Commission and the Kennedy assassination has nothing to do with this topic. Besides the fact that since the records are sealed, you have no way of knowing if they contain the name of Kennedy's real killer(s) (assuming that Oswald wasn't alone/didn't do it), or if they contain statements such as Kennedy was a robot.

I think thats the way you respond because you get uncomfortable with the subject because you know you cant argue against it.



Curiousity? To see it first hand? Humans all have their own irrational desires, we both know that.



1. Humans do stupid things.
2. Why do you assume they're as worried as you are about it?
3. It could be much less dangerous than you think.



What about time travelling humans? Just as simple as ET, and fit the data just as well too.



What you quoted has to do with a woo-woo favouring the conspiracy over reality. You're the one who proposes the grandest conspiracy.



So, Im confused... are you using this science to support your position or not? You seem to be going back and fourth quite often!

You *just* complained about how science is flawed and makes mistakes! Literally! You just mentionned that in the post directly above yours.