Which would be about any politician I have ever encountered...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Don't worry, it'll happen the day we actually find out that ET is visiting - scientists are not ignorants It will be the biggest discovery in history for two reasons:

1) ET actually does exist (in whatever shape, form and color it now may be).
2) It is possible to traverse the vastness between stars.

Now that would be something scientists all over the world would be drooling over. Somehow I am sure we would see a huge shift in the areas of research for which funding was applied for (and granted to). Which obviously hasn't happened.

But until such proof exists, I guess we will have to let it remain labeled unknown

Cheers,
Badeskov

Man likes the unknown its what we thrive on, the best part is getting on to the next unknown! Sky trys really hard to list whats at least writen for us to decide for ones self fact or fiction. Still unknown until its proven with physical proof,like a ship body`s or slimey green men`s and hopefully womens.Like the ones from Venus in the 50`s flicks! Wow! remember all those? But as far as we know anything can happen and always does! Look up people

Sure, we all strive for the unknown, that is one of the things that has brought mankind to where it is now. The other is sound, scientific analysis. Unfortunately neither can be without the other and in this case the latter does not seem to be in very high demand with some proponents of the ET hypothesis.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Carbon C60 was discovered almost a decade ago... like to show me all the products the scientists were drooling about, back then, on the shelves of your local shopping emporium today?

So does that mean no Green women from Venus? LoL

Discovered in 1985 (if memory serves), so more than 2 decades ago. But so what?! If ET visitation was really discovered to be happening, how long to develop an FTL propulsion system given that ET didn't give it to us?! My guess, between 50 and 100 years at least.

Carbon C60 (buckyballs) is not really in use that many places, and some of the originally envisioned applications were highly exaggerated. However, that doesn't mean that scientists aren't still drooling. One of the really promising applications is nanotubes and especially graphene which exhibits extremely high electron mobility (high electrical conductance). Graphene is one of the options for extending Moore's law beyond the current limitations we are currently facing, however, the means to reliably produce that one layer of carbon is still a production issue. But Intel, AMD, IBM, Fujitsu and a lot of other high density integrated circuit manufactures are spending lots of money in this field. Also, it is being researched for optical applications as well due to it's properties. However, nano-technology as required for this is still a field in development, and a good part due to the lack of precision manufacturing processes. And this is were C60 really excels...

But those were the more long term. For more near term, lets see...

If you put motor oil into your car, odds are that buckyballs is an additive to that. It was originally theorized that C60 by itself would be an extremely good lubricant, but has so far been too expensive compared to other lubricants.

It is also applied in many micro-elecromechanical systems due to it's electrical characteristics (increased current density).

That said, in most cases manufacturing costs are still prohibitive due to the lack of the nano-scale precision required. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have potential, does it?!

In any case, what is the relevance? Buckyballs is by no means a discovery with the same far reaching implications as ET. While highly attractive, in my honest opinion, it cannot be compared in any way.

But scientists are still drooling over it and just as they would be drooling over ET if scientifically credible evidence was available of ET presence.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hmmm, given the atmosphere at venus I would say they should be brown...but I don't see that disqualifying them

Cheers,
Badeskov

For *too expensive* read... If we adopt this technology the knock on effect will be to collapse a whole load of other industries who pump billions into our chosen political system. So we hand the patents over to them and they obfuscate for donkeys years until the technology they use now has run its' fiscal course and then, hey presto, C60 suddenly becomes economic

Truth about C60..if the will was there it would be used... oh yes guess its' first practical application? A chain gun patent... well, what a surprise.


It reminds me of the lie about Teflon Industry put it about that Teflon came from the space programme, when the truth was it was developed in WW2 as coating for bombs to make them fall straighter and faster through the air... That wasn't seen as good publicity, so the myth about it being a by product of the space programme was slipped into the public conciousness.

Oh, here I would have to agree with you to a certain extent. There are substantial socio-economic considerations coming into play, of that I have no doubt, however sad that might be for the further development of the applications. On the other hand, I actually don't think it is that bad and especially with respect to using C60 in optical and high frequency applications, the progress from research papers clear indicate that we are facing a manufacturing bottleneck rather than anything else.

The problem is that once the discovery has been published, the military can't really do anything to put the genie back into the bottle. With respect to C60 I have no doubt that there are serious military research programmes looking into this (one application I could envision would be heat shielding for nuclear re-entry vehicles), but on the other hand, there are some pretty serious civilian programmes doing research in this field as well. But while it might have some awesome properties, the means of production still have to be cheap enough for the average consumer to purchase and that is the main problem right now.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Once again, you continue to fall for the same old trick and I was waiting for it!

Now, what did the science book say about that encounter between the F-86 and that flying saucer? Please repost it for all to read! I might add that there is more to that story as well. Let me start you off.



Question is; did we have flying saucers capable of flying 700 mph? If not, then that flying saucer wasn't ours. I might add that the squadron commander jumped all over the pilot for firing on that flying saucer.

You can now repost the rest of the story in regards to the encounter from that Air Force science book.

Do you remember what I had said about it doesn't make any difference who reports a story, just as long as that story is factual?

Let's take a an incident involving Japan Airlines Flt 1628, which amde news around the world that was carried in a "YouTube" video, which you ridiculed not knowing the history behind that incident and scientific analysis confirming the existence of the crafts.

A clear example as to why it is not prudent to ridicule that, for which you have no understanding.

One of those stories that was carried in that YouTube video, which was also presented on the History Channel !!


The Fantastic Flight Of JAL 1628

Bruce Maccabee
Summary:This is the complete report on the UFO sighting by the Japanese crew of a jumbo freighter aircraft in November, 1986. What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this sighting ever published

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1316.htm

_________________________________________________________

Alaska's 1986 UFO sighting still rouses curiosity

KTUU Channel 2 News (Alaska), November 8, 2002

Summary: [/b]Although man has walked on the moon and orbited the earth, there is still no proof that intelligent beings exist on other planets. Yet scientists believe there could be. There is even one account to suggest aliens have flown over Alaska. "Either there's something there or there isn't it," says former FAA division chief John Callahan. "Is it a spaceship or not? Why would they say it's a spaceship if it's not? The radar ain't lying."

___________________________________________________________________



Disclosure Project: Testimony of John Callahan, Former FAA Division Chief

Disclosure Project Briefing Document - Executive Summary

Summary: For 6 years Mr. Callahan was the Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC. In his testimony he tells about a 1986 Japanese Airlines 747 flight that was followed by a UFO for 31 minutes over the Alaskan skies. The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed. There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation.

FAA Division Chief John Callahan: October 2000

For 6 years Mr. Callahan was the Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC. In his testimony he tells about a 1986 Japanese Airlines 747 flight that was followed by a UFO for 31 minutes over the Alaskan skies. The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed. There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation. This event was significant enough for the then FAA Administrator, Admiral Engen, to hold a briefing the next day where the FBI, CIA, President Reagan's Scientific Study Team, as well as others attended. Videotape radar evidence, air traffic voice communications and paper reports were compiled and presented. At the conclusion of this meeting, the attending CIA members instructed everyone present that '"he meeting never took place" and that "this incident was never recorded." Not realizing that there was additional evidence, they confiscated just the evidence presented, but Mr. Callahan was able to secure videotape and audio evidence of the event.

____________________________________________________________

FAA investigates JAL Flight 1628 UFO Sighting

Associated Press, 1986

Summary: The Federal Aviation Administration has stepped up efforts to determine the source of wavering lights that dogged a Japan Air Lines cargo jet across Alaska's night sky for nearly an hour in November.

ANCHORAGE (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has stepped up efforts to determine the source of wavering lights that dogged a Japan Air Lines cargo jet across Alaska's night sky for nearly an hour in November. "We're looking at it to ensure that somebody didn't violate airspace we control," FAA spokesman Paul Steucke said Sunday. "We looked at it about six weeks ago, but since then we've gotten a lot of public interest, so we went back and re-interviewed the pilot. He provided us with additional information."

__________________________________________________________

CALLAHAN PRESENATION SUMMARY

UFO INCIDENT INVOLVING A JAPANESE B747 IN THE VICINITY OF ANC - NOV 1986

[/b]During the play back of the event I observed a primary radar target in the position

reported by the Japanese pilot. The intermittent primary target stayed in close

proximately to the B747 for approximately 31 minutes. Both the FAA controller and

military NORAD controller reported observing the RADAR return of the "UFO" target

on their "scopes". There was no noticeable weather" in the area. "You can see into next

Tuesday" was reported by a United pilot.


The UFO was painted as an extremely large primary target. As a result of the lacking

run length identification the FAA computer system treated the UFO RADAR return as

"weather" and transmitted it to the controller's PVD via a non recorded line. ( All

known aircraft are programed in the FAA computer systems "Run Length" table.)

At the conclusion of the hand-off briefing the CIA advised they were "confiscating all the data,

this event never happened, we were never here and you are all sworn to secrecy." They also

advised they would not notify the media as "it would scare the public."

[b]http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/Callahansummary.pdf


_________________________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVWKRUCM9s8...feature=related

Fear!! The 1953 Robertson Report, the "War of the Worlds" broadcast of 1938, and this:

The 1960 Brookings Institute's Report to NASA

SPACE-LIFE REPORT COULD BE SHOCK, UFOI, Vol. I, No. II (Dec 1960 - Jan 1961 issue)

The discovery of intelligent space beings could have a severe effect on the public, according to a research report released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The report warned that America should prepare to meet the psychological impact of such a revelation.

The 190-page report was the result of a $96,000 one-year study conducted by the Brookings Institution for NASA's long-range study committee.

Public realization that intelligent beings live on other planets could bring about profound changes, or even the collapse of our civilization, the research report stated.

http://www.nicap.org/brookingsdir.htm

Let's take a look at another UFO case file that was presented by the Disclosure Project. My base was involved in the investigation of this incident and here you laughed at an incident that was history already because you didn't know, which was the result of not doing your homework that would have told you that the incidents of the Disclosure Project were backed with documentds, data and other evidence that you were unaware of!

Why is it that the skeptics keep supplying the ammunition against their own debunking efforts?!

UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature

Summary: Bibliographical listing of articles on UFO's published in leading (mainstream) scientific journals and literature.



Aeronautics and Astronautics


"AIAA Committee looks at the UFO Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, December, 1968, p. 12.

Golomb S., "The Wheel in the Middle of the Air," Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Sounding Board, August 1966, p. 16.

Letters to AIAA Journal, Nov. 1966, p. 6. Early and Marsh on "Saucer Doctrine".

Friedman, S.T., "Flying Saucers are Real ", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Feb., 1968, p. 16.

Friedman, S.T., "UFO reports available," Aeronautics and Astronautics, April, 1971, p. 4.

Kuettner, J. P., "A New Start on the Whole UFO ProbIem?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, November 1973.

McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 5, August 1967, pp. 19-20.

McDonald, James E., "UFO Encounter I - Air Force Observations of an Unidentified Flying Object in the South-Central U.S., July 17, 1957", in Aeronautics and Astronautics, July, 1971, pp. 66-70.

Sturrock, Peter. A., "UFO Reports from AIAA Members", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 12, pp. 60-64, 1974.

Thayer, Gordon D., "UFO encounter II - The Lakenheath England, Radar-Visual UFO case, August 13-14, 1956", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sept., 1971, pp. 60-64.

AIAA UFO Subcommittee, "UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 8. No. 11, November 1970, P. 49-51.

Carlson J. B., and Sturrock, Peter A., "Stanford Workshop on Extraterrestrial Civilization: Opening a New Scientific Dialog", Aeronautics and Astronautics, June, 1975, pp. 64-65.

"Our Extraterrestrial Heritage: From UFO's to Space Colonies", Proceedings of the Joint Symposium, Los Angeles, Calif., January 28, Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and World Futures Society, 1978.


American Association for the Advancement of Science

McDonald, James E., "Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

Hynek, J. Allen, "Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

Baker, R. M. L., "Motion Pictures of UFO's", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

American Meteorological Society

McDonald, James E., "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns", Paper Presented at the 14th Radar Meteorology Conference, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 17-20, 1970. Boston: American Meteorological Society (1970), pp. 456-463.


American Society of Mechanical Engineers


Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10.

Earley, G., "UFOs: An Historical Perspective", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-18, 1967, pp. 1-15, session 10.


American Journal of Physics


Page, Thornton, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," American Journal of Physics, October, 1969.


Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist

Hynek, A., "The Condon Report and UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, April 1969, pp. 39-42.

Munday, J., "On the UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Dec 1967, pp. 40-41.

Condon, Edward U., "UFOs I have Loved and Lost", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Vol 15, No. 10.


Applied Optics

Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand", Applied Optics, Vol 18, No. 15, 2527-28, 1979.

Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand -- Author's Reply to Comments", Applied Optics, 19, 1745, 1980.

Icarus

McDonald, James E., "The Condon Report", Icarus, Vol 11, #3, November 1969, pp. 443-447.

Astronomy

Dickinson, Terence, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", Astronomy, December 1974, 32 pages.


Industrial Research


"UFO's probably exist", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 1971, p. 75.

"Did UFOs Go Away?", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 1979, p. 191.

"Good Chance UFOs Exist in Some Form", Industrial Research and Development, July 1979, p. 139.

Scientific Research

"Libel Suit May Develop From UFO Hassle", Scientific Research, may 13, 1968, pp. 11-12.

Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "The UFO Report: Condon Study Falls Short", Scientific Research, April 14, 1969, p. 41.

Popular Science

Armagnac, Alden P., "Condon Report on UFOs: Should You Believe It?", Popular Science, April 1969, pp. 72-76.


Engineering Opportunities

Hersey, Irwin, "UFOs and the Condon Report: Are All the Answers in?", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, pp. 39-42.

McDonald, James E.,"The Dissenting View", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, p. 33.


Science and Mechanics

Mallan, Loyd, "The Condon Report: Fact or Fiction?", Science and Mechanics, 40.5, May 1969, pp. 38-40, 86,88,90.


Technology Review

Hynek, J. Allen, "The UFO Phenomenon: Laugh, Laugh, Study, Study", Technology Review, Vol. 83, No. 7 July 1981, pp. 50-58.


Nature

Ridpath, Ian, "Interview with J. Allen Hynek", Nature, Vol. 251, October 1974, p. 369.


Journal of the Optical Society of America

Hynek, J., "Unusual Aerial Phenomena", Journal of the Optical Society of America, April 1953.

Journal of Astronautical Sciences

Baker, Robert M., "Observational Evidence of Anomalistic Phenomena", Journal of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XV, No. 1, pp. 31-36, Jan-Feb, 1968.

Baker, Robert M., "Future Experiments on Anomalistic Observational Phenomena", Journal of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XV, No. 1, pp. 44-45, Jan-Feb, 1968.

Walker, Sydney, "Establishing Observer Creditability: A Proposed method", Journal of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XV, No. 2, pp. 92-96, March-April, 1968.


Bio-Science


Salisbury, Frank B., "The Scientist and the UFO", Bio-Science, Vol. 17, no. 1, 1967.


Science


Powers, William, "Analysis of UFO Reports", Science, Vol. 156, 7 April, 1967.

Hynek, Allen J., "UFO's Merit Scientific Study", Science, October 21, 1966.

Markowitz, W.,"The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", Science, Vol. 157, 1967.

Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground", Science, Vol. 161, July 26, 1968, pp. 339-42.

Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits from Outer Space", Science, Vol. 163, January 17, 1969, pp. 260-62.

Murray, Bruce C.,"Reopening the Question", Science, Vol. 177, August 25, 1972, pp. 688-89.

Holden, Constance,"Air Force Bestows on National Archives a Trove for UFOlogists", Science Vol 193, August 20, 1976, pp. 662-663.


Physics Today

Friedman, S.T., "More on UFO's", Physics Today, P. 97, January 1971.

Powers, W. T., " Case for "real" UFO's", Physics Today, P. 14, June, 1970.

"Condon Study Rebuts UFOs; Critics Offer Own Version", Physics Today, Vol. 22, Nr. 3, March 1969, p. 67, p. 71.

"Edward Condon: A physicist Never Afraid of a Fight", Physics Today, Vol. 22, Nr. 3, March 1969, pp. 66-67.

Rothberg, Gerald, "UFOs: Fact or Fiction?", Physics Today, Vol. 22, Nr. 12, December, 1969, pp. 69-71.



Popular Photography


Hynek, Allen J.,"How to Photograph a UFO", Popular Photography, March 1968, p. 69-110-112-114.

Journal of Scientific Exploration
Brandenburg, John E., DiPietro, Vincent, and Molenaar, Gregory, "The Cydonian Hypothesis", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1-27.

Bounais, M., "Traumatology as a Potent Tool for Identifying Actual Stresses Elicted by Unidentified Sources: Evidence for Plant Metabolic Disorders in Correlation with a UFO landing", Journal of scientific exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1-18.

Bramley, William, "Can the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Vallee Hypotheses Be Reconciled?", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1992, pp. 3-11.

Guerin, Pierre, "A Scientific Analysis of Four Photographs of a Flying Disk Near Lac Chauvet", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1994, pp. 447-469.

Haines, Richard and Vallee, Jacques, "Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989, pp. 113-131.

Haines, Richard and Vallee, Jacques, "Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica: New Evidence", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 71-74.

Haines, Richard, "Analysis of a UFO Photograph", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1987, pp. 129-147.

Henry, Richard C., "UFOs and NASA", Journal of Scientific Exploration,
Vol 2, No. 2, 1988, pp. 93-142.

Maccabee, Bruce, "Analysis of the Images of a Cluster of periodically Flashing Lights Filmed Off the Coast of New Zealand", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 149-190, 1987.

Maccabee, Bruce, "Strong Magnetic Field Detected Following a Sighting of an Unidentified Flying Object", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1994, pp. 347-365.

Sturrock, Peter, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project", Vol 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 75-100.

Sturrock, Peter, "Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 1;2;3, 1994, pp. 1-45;153-195;309-346.

Swords, Michael, "Could Extraterrestrial Intelligences be Expected to Breathe Our Air?", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1995,
pp. 381-392.

Velasco, Jean-Jacques, "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO case", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 27-48.

Vallee, Jacques, "Return to Trans-en-Provence", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 19-26.

Vallee, Jacques, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 105-117.

Vallee, Jacques, "Towards a Second-Degree Extraterrestrial Theory of UFOs: A Response to Dr. Wood and Prof. Bozhich", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 113-120.

Wood, R., "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is Not That Bad", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 103-112.

That, boys and girls, is the bottom line.

Skyeagle.

All those "UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature" you posted are about UFOs and the speculation that they are extraterrestrial in origin. Vallee, Hynek, Friedman and some of the others have all been on Coast 2 Coast AM with their "evidence", I have heard them all many times, saying the same things. They have written tons of papers, books and done numerous TV shows.

They all have one thing in common, the hard evidence is still missing.

You forgot to add: "Bwahahahahaha!"

I didn't read the entire science book. The conclusion of the chapter I quoted/linked to is enough to determine you are wrong in your assessment.

I'm not convinced that what was seen/reported was a nuts and bolt craft, either from Mobile Alabama or Zeta Reticuli. And if that "flying saucer" was from ET, it obviously wasn't a threat, since one of our aircraft fired on it, and yet the "craft" did nothing in return.

No, I can't, and won't. Do you know why? Because that would be a violation of terms of this forum. Perhaps it would do you good to read over them. They're easily found. I'll even help you.

(Bold in original)
You've violated that rule numerous times, in that you have not included a source link. You've also violated rule 2d (by your own admission, I might add):

You violated that rule in post #2769 of this thread.

In addition, there are forum guidelines at the top of the page:


Do you deny you've violated the rules of this forum, and that you're trying to entice me to also violate the rules of this forum?

careful we dont want"them" to delete this thread its still got space some where in the massive storage hardrive somewhere? And if sky can keep the reffrence points comeing theres lots for everyone to read.Maybe there is proof and exibit-A out there until we are flying to the other galaxies with our new buddies swapping tails of eachothers historys ect lets just live for the day.IMO DONTEATUS

Explained: Terrestrially Speaking.


A metallic flying disk with rotating beacon lights and portholes, which was about 100 meters in diameter, entered our airspace at 500 mph and then, hovered silently for 30 minutes in 40-knot winds. It then zoomed off in a climb at 9000 mph and was tracked on multiple radars and confirmed visually by over 200 people.

Believers explanation: It was a flying saucer

Debunkers: It was the planet Venus

Oh now, after it has been said in the past by the skeptics that there were no UFOs mentioned in scientific literature, the back-stepping begins.

Do you know just how amusing it was to sit here and read how Debunker ridiculed UFO icnidents that were presented by the Disclosure Project and YouTube video, without checking the original sources nor any documentation on the case files?!

I posted the JAL UFO encounter to prove a point that some skeptics don''t do their homework, nor do it properly is they do. If Debunker had done his homework, and done it properly, he would have found the incident made big news and is well-documented, hence my statement that the skeptics supply me with the ammunition to use against them.

I wonder why!!



How would you have known??? You've just said that you didn't read the whole book, which I referenced only to that one particular incident!

Goes to show why are you not in tuned with reality on UFOs. It was reported by the Air Force pilot, the craft was a flying saucer and why he was there in the first place, which was tracked at 700 mph. The pilot attempted to shoot down the flying saucer, but the craft sped away, leaving the fighter jet in the dust.

Typical of the way the skeptics with no experience, telling highly experienced experts with many years on the job, that they don't know what they are talking about.

Other prime examples are:

* Explaining Venus, Jupiter, and Mars, as a saucer-shaped craft that maneuvers around aircraft within Earth's atmosphere

* Explaining that a weather balloon was a saucer-shaped craft that sped off in a climb at hypersonic speed

* Explaining aircraft as UFOs that were reported in space

And, the list goes on and on.

You wonder why I didn't read the entire book? Perhaps because it's out of print, and I don't have a copy?

From where did you get that information? How do we know the description is accurate?

I was referencing only that one particular incident between the Air Force F-86 and the flying saucer he reported and attempted to shoot down in order to make a point and you did what I expected you to do.

It was obvious the saucer he reported wasn't ours to begin with because we didn't have saucers in our inventiory capable of supersonic flight.

It was typical of UFO encounter such as the JAL UFO incident.

So again, no source link.

You just love to dig a deeper and deeper hole, don't you?

I am very sure that if you had been paying any attention, I referred to it as a "typical" incident, and if you want references on aircrew descriptions and documents, what did I just post less than 24 hours ago?

You still have no idea what is going on, do you?!

http://ufologie.net/htm/coleman52.htm

I was paying attention, and I did read the "typical" in your post.

What's your point?

Are you going to address my question concerning firsthand research you've done (instead of copying and pasting links and documents)?

I mentioned before, microfilms in the library and even publications such as Life Magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40, which I have reviewed.

The links also save me time and effort and why I used them since they are factual and also available under the FOIA. I find it amusing that the skeptics attack my "cut and paste" operations not knowing that the same information is available in declassified documents available under the FOIA.

Policy of a typical debunker is to attack the messenger if the message can't be attacked.

I have also mentioned that I have received documentation from the Air Force proving that no Mogul balloon was involved in the Roswell incident and I also mention the use of the FOIA, which debunkers do not like to do for obvious reasons.

I have done lot's of research, including those of my compatriots who were at RAF Bentwaters. I have had my own experience as well.

Like this, huh?


Post #2828, this thread.

Now, follow up on the information from the link I posted at #2828.

Interference with Aircraft Equipment

(Sturrock Panel Report)

Haines discussed two pilot reports in detail, one of which was an interesting case that occurred at 2105 EST on March 12, 1977 between Buffalo and Albany, New York, that involved United Airlines flight 94, a nonstop flight from San Francisco to Boston. The DC-10 airplane was under the control of autopilot system #2 and was flying at 37,000 feet altitude. The entire sky was dark and clear ahead and above the airplane, except for a partial undercast with small clouds extending to about 20 miles ahead. The aircraft was flying at an indicated air speed of 275 knots (true air speed 530 knots). The aircraft was about half way between Buffalo and Albany, and had just changed from contact with the "FROM" VOR (Very-High-Frequency Omnidirectional Bearing) signal emanating from Buffalo to the "TO" signal from Albany. The aircraft was just south of Syracuse, New York.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the airplane began to turn to the left, making a 15 degree bank. Within a few seconds, the First Officer and the Captain looked to the left side of their plane and saw an extremely bright white light at about their own altitude. Subsequently, the Flight Engineer also looked and saw the light source. It appeared to be perfectly round and its apparent diameter was about 3 degrees of arc. However, the Captain estimated the object to be about 1,000 yards away and to be about 100 feet in size, that corresponds to an angular size of 2 degrees. "Its intensity was remarkable — about the intensity of a flashbulb," he remarked. Boston ATC radioed to ask "United 94, where are you going?" The Captain replied "Well, let me figure this out. I will let you know." He then noticed that the three cockpit compasses (that use sensors in different parts of the plane) were all giving different readings. At this point, the Copilot turned off the autopilot and took manual control of the airplane.

Based upon the fact that the object did not move laterally in the cockpit window during the 45 degree left heading change and from knowledge of the turn radius of this airplane at its stated velocity, Haines calculated the approximate distance to the object to be about 10 nautical miles. If the pilot's angular size estimate for the object is accurate, this suggests that the light source was about 2100 feet across. The object appeared to stay with the airplane for 4 to 5 minutes, after which it departed very rapidly, disappearing within about 15 seconds behind them to the west. The Captain asked ATC if they had any radar traffic in that area and received a negative reply.

There are a great many stories about US presidents seeing UFOs. Only a couple of the stories actually have strong enough evidence to back up the fact a sighting took place. One case with a lot of supporting evidence involves Ronald Reagan who had two sightings that we are aware of.

Both of Reagan’s UFO sightings occurred when he was the 33^rd Governor of California (1967 – 1975). The first occurred on the night that Reagan was invited to a party that actor William Holden was having in Hollywood. A number of key personalities were invited. Two of them, comedian Steve Allen, and actress Lucy Ball both told the story of Reagan’s UFO encounter.

Reagan was missing when the party began and the party was held up until he and Nancy arrived nearly an hour late. According to both Allen’s and Ball’s version of events Reagan was very excited. He described the fact that he and Nancy had seen a UFO while coming down the coast highway to Los Angeles and stopped to watch the event. Some unconfirmed stories of the event stated that the object actually landed. Lucy in her account of the event stated, “After he elected President, I kept thinking about that event, and wondered if he still would have won if he told everyone that he saw a flying saucer.”

The other Reagan sighting occurred in 1974 just before Reagan ended his second term as governor. The story was told by Air Force Colonel Bill Paynter who became the pilot of Reagan’s Cessna Citation jet plane following his retirement from the Air Force.

It a story Ronald Reagan told to Norman Miller, Washington Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal, the governor’s plane was making an approach to land in Bakersfield California. It was during the descent that Reagan noticed a strange light behind the plane. "We followed it for several minutes, Reagan told Miler. “ It was a bright white light. We followed it to Bakersfield and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens."

Paynter, the pilot stated, “"it appeared to be several hundred yards away" and it was "a fairly steady light until it begun to accelerate. Then it appeared to elongate. Then the light took off. It went up a 45 degrees angle at a high rate of speed. Everyone on the plane was surprised."

Paynter added: "The UFO went from normal speed cruise to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power, it will accelerate, but not like a "hot rod", and that's what this was like. Governor Reagan expressed amazement. I told the others I didn’t know what it was. The UFO went from a normal cruise speed to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power it will accelerate - but not like a hotrod, and that is what this was like.

We didn’t file a report on the object because for a long time they considered you a nut if you saw a UFO.

Reagan, in his discussion of the sighting with Norman C. Miller added that he had told Nancy about the UFO, and they had done personal research on UFOs. This research had uncovered the facts that there were references to UFOs in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Reagan was telling his story in a very animated way. This led Millar to conclude that Reagan seriously believed in UFOs. He asked him, "Governor, are you telling me that you saw a UFO?"

Suddenly, according to Millar, Reagan realized that he was talking to a reporter. "This look crossed his face," recalled Millar, "and he said let’s just say that I’m an agnostic."

LoL Skyeagle you tha man! I think if I saw a object that was hovering and then left at speesd ,say over 1,500 mph from a dead stop then I think it would be something specail that I would tell someone.How about you? We only have a few toys that do that sorta acelaration like missles and such. DONTEATUS,still hungry for more info.

whos heard
they just de-classified files. on Ufo's [in canada i think]

it was on the 11'00 news last night

but i missec it.:[

Sky...you still dont get it. A UFO conference with a bunch of believers isnt what I would call skeptical scientists.... There is no "problem" in trying to sell aliens to a believer...They would gladly pay 50 bucks to hear about 57 different species of aliens and other fantastic claims that there is no other evidence for, other then some ex this or that word for.

The DP is a bunch of bla, bla, bla...

If it was the real deal it would be EVERYWERE -- ALL THE TIME.

It is not.

Thats all Im saying...A bunch of guys jumping to conclusions.

Classic strawman...

And..like Nigel said..

The reason your not posting links to 95% of your cut and paste is obvious to us all...They are from UFO believer sites.

I promise they are here.com

They were the folks who had experienced UFOs firsthand or were involved in UFO investigations.

BTW, did you know that many of the UFO case files on record are those of scientist, engineers, and astronomers?

Mainstream science has been given many years to come clean and they've failed, and if anything, the Condon Study is one prime example where it tried its own hand at deception on its own UFO case files, of which up to 1/3 remain unexplained, terrestrially speaking.

Seems like ALOT...if you believe in everything from the link that you just posted...

Here it is... Take a look at were ol sky gets his "hard evidence" from...

http://sumatra.globat.com/~patrickgross.co...ogie/indexe.htm

Do you really believe in everything thats on this site!!???

How would you know when you weren't even aware that UFO was written in many scientific journals until now? if I hadn't posted the list, you still wouldn't have known about it.

The same guys of mainstream science that now, you are attacking because you are now aware that "UFO" was in fact, mentioned in science literature.

What's up with that???

Hmmm. the link you posted that depicts a saucer-shaped craft, is similar to the description made here, which I posted earlier.


INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE - VOLUME II
CHAPTER ***III
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - USAF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

[We too have fired on UFO's. About ten o'clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86's were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude. The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer.]

That is where I got the skeptifcs!!

They didn't bother to do their homework to determined that the "cut-and-paste" information can also be obtained from declassified government UFO files under the FOIA and I find that very amusing, since the skeptics didn't bother to check the original sources.

Case in point; the 1976 Iranian UFO incident, which I have "cut-and-pasted" before, can also be found on the website of the National Security Agency (NSA), which is not considered a UFO website of the kind you thought.

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf

So here is where you ridiculed actual UFO case files that were not only reported around the globe and documented in government UFO files, and available under the FOIA, but are history already and look what you posted which once again, proved my point that the skeptics are not interested in doing ANY homework, nor doing it properly when they do, and why it gets them sent to the burn center when the facts come folling in.

Just another example of closed-minded skeptics providing ammunition against their own debunker attempts.

As I"ve said before, it doen't matter who presents the information, just as long as that information is factural.

I'd make one change.....from "mainstream science" to "believers".

50,000 years.....and nothing to show for it!
[Jed Clampett]Pitiful....pitiful....[/JC]

Just lick the wounds after falling on the wrong side of the barbed wire fence.

As most of us know, UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object... Not alien space ship.

Thats "What's up".


Show me were mainstream science state for a fact that the aliens are here...and then post a link to the source.

In British papers today.....articles about Top Secret Files made public for the first time....
documenting 7000 'sightings' over a period of 10 years in the 70s and 80s.

Back stepping?

We all know that UFOs exist. I have never seen a skeptic say otherwise. UFO does NOT = ET, not in scientific literature, not on TV, not anywere.

Your problem seems to be that you cant separate the two.



Like Debunker said..