Thank you very much!!!

It is amazing that they attack those websites whose i information has already been validated as accurate and available from the National Archives under the FOIA.

Not only me, but there are:

* Commercial and military pilots

* Senior intelligence and military officials

* Radar experts

* Even astronauts and cosmonauts

* Scientist, engineers, and astronomers

And, many other countires around the globe are now coming out and revealing that the UFOs in question are in fact, very real and the data they are revealing proves they are not ours.

Astronomers and UFOs

http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/Astronomers_and_UFOs.pdf

I don't want to sound like I'm piling on, but does it even matter what that article says?

A quick glance at the authors' sources shows that there aren't any 'objective' opinions there. While the body of the text maybe interesting, none of it can be taken at face value, solely because the sources are less than credible.

My apologies, as I have not poured through the 190+ pages of this thread, but these documents do nothing for me.

And that is where the frustration factor comes in for folks like me. I don't have have the wherewithal to do an indepth study.

I'd just like to see some documents from a credible source that point to what you say.

If the info comes straight from the FOIA, how do we know it hasn't been tampered with, added to?

I never said I didn't want to use those websites.

Ever heard of "spin"?

Here's an example of spin one of my high school teachers told me:

An American horse and a Russian horse are in a race.
The American horse wins.
Tass reports:
Russian horse comes in second, American horse comes in next to last.

This incident was withheld from the public at one time and in the distribution list, you will find that this incident went all the way up to the White House.

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

Very good, and exactly what I asked for.

But, all it shows is that the Govenment has NO CLUE what the hell they are either.

Precisely, it's at best unidentified. A far jump from there to ET.

It doesnt matter if the whole world believes in aliens, if there not real. It all comes down to the evidence, what can be proven, real physical evidence...and soo far its lacking.

Remember the moonrocks...they were examined by real scientists, world wide, and the verdict is... REAL. Thats what we need to put this to bed. Not the "what else could it have been" wining.

I you look at all the mainstream scientists and governments reports posted by sky...it all the same...Only UFOs in there.
But to skyeagle...UFO=ALIENS..(!)

He just can tell the difference.

Whats the word Im looking for? Hum? does who gives a hoot to the bickering. As long as there is a possibility there may be wonders out there just waiting to show off the neat toys! So lets just for a min belive in them and we may see them! Like the ships off shore in what the bleep was I thinking. Great semi doc,movie. DONTEATUS

And that is exactly the problem of this field. There have been quite a few scientific investigations and they all conclude that it is either natural phenomena or unknown. Period. We can all extrapolate from inconclusive data, but that does not fact make.



It is really hard to say either way, but in my opinion the FOIA documents that have been posted are most likely not tampered with. But on the other, none of them states specifically that it is ET flitting around for sure - just that is unknown with some added speculations.

Cheers,
Badeskov

The problem is that some of the so-called believer websites tend to add their own speculation to the equation. Nonetheless, I still use them. But I do prefer to use the original sources.

In any case, original sources or someone passing one the information, the fact still stands that nobody can say for a fact that ET is here and have some data to back it up with.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Your crazed theories are nothing short of embarrasing. I am a skeptic, in a way, because I turn to the explanation that has the most evidence supporting it. A person who believes NOTHING is called a cynic. UFO's exist, yes, but they certainly aren't alien machines.

There's plenty of data just nothing conclusive. That is what you are looking for right conclusive? Funny cause there are alot of things held to be "factual" (evolution immediately comes to mind) that has plenty of data but isn't conclusive. Ok here is an obvious question which seeing the list of responses may have been covered already, (if so just let me know eh)if these craft which have been reported as far back as the early 40s are not ET, then who or what are they, I mean if there's no proof of them being ET, what proof is there of who or what they are if any?

...frankly I am surprise so many people posted here it's kinda a no win situation and say no different then putting up a thread asking for the big SHABANG!!! of proof that say the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. But at the same time amazing the desire to post and interact in a discussion/debate or whatever keeps these topics going, amazing!

the whynsos

Evolution has been observed, in both natural and artificial selection, but that's another topic entirely.

There is no one explanation for all the cases. In some cases, they were spy planes, in some, rocket boosters or other parts falling to earth, in others, meteors or bollides, still others, deliberate hoaxes, and in some, it's simply unknown. The reasons some cases are unexplained vary as well. In some, there simply isn't enough information available as to what happened. Others may in fact be because of ET, but there isn't definite proof of that, at least not yet.

There are methods to prove the sun is powered by fusion. And I wouldn't be surprised if at some point, this thread runs out of steam, but the topic, with or without the particular participants, will likely go on for a long, long time.

exactly, they are not conclusive and that is just how it is. Trying to guess what it is based on the data sets we currently have just doesn't make the case for ET visitation.



There is a huge difference between the workings of the sun and UFOs. The sun we can watch continously and keep probing with more and more sophisticated equipment. Currently fusion is the best theory we have, and while it might be wrong, odds are that we are right (very much so, actually). On the contrary, the UFO phenomenon presents only a fleeting encounter and we have no means of revisting it with more and more sophisticated equipment to try and falsify the hypothesis we hold. There is simply not enough data to exclude multiple options and then where do we stand?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

OK Hazzard I cannot give you proof, however I can give you some compelling first hand sight.
I was working grooming ski slope years ago and one night as I walked out of our snow cat shop after lunch I was looking directly at an anomaly. What I saw was an electromagnetic sphere all purple and blue; like looking at a black light. The distance I was away from it I have now been able to discern using google earth. I was approx. 1 mi. from it at the shop. Now I was able to get within about 2 to 3 10ths of a mile which is pretty close. Now when I first seen this I went back inside and persuaded the other guy working with me at the time (we were the only ones on the Mt besides the ones asleep in the condos) to come outside without telling him why. I stood there and asked him if he seen anything strange. (He could not see anything) This thing was not small the light surrounding what ever craft had to be about the size of a big barn plus half if not larger. I was able to look at it from different angles plus look down on it from the top of the Mt. Being able to move around in the snow cat. But we were not allowed across the road. The following year I seen it again in the very same place between the very same hours on the very same date. Again I asked the other guy working with me if he could see anything. He could not. I'm still good friends with the second guy. The first I didn't talk to much. There is no way they could not of seen this thing no way no how. Unless the occupants had some how taken control of their minds. It struck me that this is what had to have happened, due to the way they were acting. More like drones or robots saying we need to get this work done. I worked with the second guy for 4 years three years prior to this previous guy and the last year and we always goofed off. There was plenty of time to do everything we needed to do. SO, what's your take on that?

Examining only the data about ufos wont reveal anything, just that there was something there. But in some cases we do have not only data but the testimony of people, and we can examine both. In these cases the witnesses are ridiculed so we have nothing to look again. But if you put data and witnesses together what we have is metallic crafts floating at high altitude in our atmosphere, since we do not have aircrafts like the ones being described the et hypothesis is a very valid point.

Unfortunately we cant trust other people judgment...

They knew, because it was later revealed that NORAD was tracking the incident as well, which WAS something that didn't come up until later by the engineers of Aerojet who builds the DSP satellite for NORAD.

But, who else on Earth do you know that flies hypersonic flying saucers that have been visually confirmed as such and corroborated by radar systems?

Since their flying saucers have now been confirmed as real, I will ask you the same question I asked NigelTM:

Who else on Earth flies hypersonic flying saucers that have been confirmed visually as such and corroborated on radar systems?

Was that suppose to be, can, or can't?

Anyway, what was the gerneral description of those UFOs? Question once again is: Do we have such crafts? If not, then the question has been answered.

In other words, if the flying saucers are not ours, then, the flying saucers are not ours.

Actually, the Air Force has already admitted to the reality of flying saucers back in the late 1940's.

In fact, it has now been confirmed that flying saucers were responsible for shuting down military and civilian radar systems at Kirtland AFB and the surrounding areas.

And, I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained in terrestrial terms, but the cases that cannot be explained, is what I am interested in, because highly experienced aircrews with years of experience were describing saucer-type crafts that were maneuvering around their aircraft, which then proceeded to zoom off at hypersonic speeds.

Question is: Were they ours?

I've heard it all before and it doesn't amount to anytihing.




All you have to do is to present any aircaft capable of this kind of performance and if not, then the ETH is the only one left and the simplest when aerodynamics are taken into consideration.





Then, take the data above and show where it has anything to do with the performance levels of any aircraft.

In fact, present any aircraft that can at least come halfway to the performance data above and if you are unable to do so, then I rest my case the object was not of this Earth by that very fact.

National Security Agency

UFO Documents Index

The documents listed on this page were located in response to the numerous requests received by NSA on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO). In 1980, NSA was involved in Civil Action No. 80-1562, "Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency". Documents related to that ligitation are marked with "*". "***XX" has been inserted in a title if a portion of the title has been deleted prior to release. .

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

What Happened At Muroc AFB?

CONFIDENTIAL
HEADQUARTERS MUROC ARMY AIR FIELD
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER
MUROC, CALIFORNIA 14 August 1947

SUBJECT: Investigation of "Flying Discs"

TO: Commanding General
Headquarters Fourth Air Force
Hamilton Field,
San Francisco, California

ATTEN: AC of S, A-2
1: In compliance with your LEAD SHEET dated 6 August 1947, subject, Investigation of "Flying Saucers", the enclosed statements are submitted for your information.

signed
HARRY. D. BLACK
Captain, MAC,
Intelligence Officer

Inc. 1-8 Statements Re: "Flying Discs"


AAF 1st Lt. Joseph C. McHenry, T/Sgt Joseph Ruvolo, S/Sgt Gerald E. Nauman, (and Miss Jannette Marie Scotte at 10:00 a.m., see case below) saw two saucer or disc shaped objects, silver and apparently metallic, fly a wide circular pattern [?] at about 7500-8000 ft at 350-400 mph heading 320° (about NW) toward Mojave, Calif. Before the first 2 objects disappeared a 3rd similar disc or spherical silver object reflecting sunlight was seen, with additional 5 witnesses, to the N flying tight circles at about 7,000-8,000 ft beyond capability of known aircraft, maintaining altitude. No sound or trails. 3-4 mins.

Supporting documents and other information


http://www.nicap.org/muroc470708_1dir.htm

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?P...=MAXW-PBB2-1108

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?P...e=USAF-SIGN1-19

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

"Currently fusion is the best theory we have, and while it might be wrong, odds are that we are right (very much so, actually)."

We aren't looking at odds and I wasn't setting out to prove ufo are of ET origin, however as anarkhy points out, when you utilize both sets of data, ufo manuverability size and shape and combined that with what some witness accounts who indicate that the occupants are not of earthly origin, you are left with a conclusion that the ufos are [not of earthly origin ]but of some place other then earth making the likely statement that it is of ET origin probable. Fusion may be the best theory we have, though I don't think you could make the case over at thunder bolt, and not that I support that, but here you have something you can probe and test and yet even basic questions like why the corona is so much greater in temp then the surface which seems to negate the fusion model does little to change current thinking. Yet we know of no craft created by anyone on earth since the 40s if not early that demonstrates the capablities of ufos, while this isn't conclusive it is most probable that they are of et origin. This is the point of me using say our sun or stars as an analogy, we can't see nor detect too deep inside our own star or any other but seem certain that the odds are it's powered by fusion. So you are saying looking at the ufo phenomena that odds are this isn't ET, as I said before if not of ET origin then what? One has to make some leap in any field of study while simultaneously admitting it is unknonwn or not yet conclusive but a leap none the less other wise what would be the point of studying a phenomena?

isn't that what science is about attempting to disprove ones theory to see if it can with stand the test of time?

the whynsos

Its still great we have a place to voice our opinion`s in here. It`s like polar extreems in here.Undeadskeptic ,Eieam Wun, Sky, all of us. we all have our idea`s on E.T. and UFO`s. In the begining therr was ? nada! blank,time and space as the storie goes.Then as presumed by man I may add! Human man that iis Not E.T.`s but MAN! US! we invented all we read and say. And in our version of this wonderful exsistance we were evolved fron star stuff!very small elements of the universe. Some have a different storie to tell.But as the sicence books I read eveloution over millions of years from stuff!So in a real way we are space alein too. How like man to think we are it! the big enchilada! only life! like microbes on many ,many others worlds eveloveing themselfs to become the Giants like man with all our Humanty! LoL on that part. But the bottom line we are not alone the proof is Us! look next time your in a large crowd! Think your alone now? Just DONTEATUS IMO

You're presenting a false dichotomy, which is your biggest downfall. That's like saying if the food on my plate in front of me is not steak, then the only possible choice left is chicken.

Facts are facts, and you have to face the reality of those facts, and it is as simple as that!!

Don't you think that I have already been aware of the way debunkers work? I guess not!!

yeah umm that makes no sense and is not even close to a good analogy.

actually your analogy makes it appear like a false dichotomy. You using specifics such as steak and chicken implying that ufos are just another type of craft which is far from it. We know next to nothing about these craft other then they don't follow the same rules via observation that our crafts do, this means that the analogy should be more along the lines of saying if the food on my plate in front of me is not from an animal then the only probable choice left would be a vegetarian dish (and vegetarian not neccessarily meaning vegetables but plants). Thus making sky's statement a valid one...

All of skys satements are valid one`s. IMO.just not proven or disproven as little green,and grey creatures. Yet!

Incorrect. Sky is using the dichotomy of our (earthly) craft, the steak in my example, or alien spacecraft, the chicken in my example. What's left is a whole host of possibilities, from hoaxes to misidentifications. My point is that Sky is so certain the UFOs (which at best have been unidentified in all official literature, be it government documents or scientific studies) are nuts and bolt craft from outside the earth, yet there's no proof of that. His "either/or" scenario is "either it's a manmade aircraft or it's an alien spaceship", and I'm simply saying, "no, there are other possibilities, and combinations of possibilities", for example: "You may have steak, and/or chicken, and/or fish, and/or pork, and/or rice, and/or beans, and/or spinach, and/or.....on your plate." You don't have to be limited to only steak or chicken. That's the fallacy he's committing.

Food aside, what are the other possiblities because I am not sky and have asked this twice already and had yet to get a response and lets focus on those cases that have shown not to be a hoax or misidentification. If it isn't ET, then what are the other possiblities, is it ours, are they interdimensional, extradimensional, are these the other options and if so being that we only have the ability as of now to test in THIS dimension how would any other option be VALIDATED or more on "our" level even be considered as a simplistic option?

Slice of Gordon Cooper anyone ?

Nice bit of astronaut pie?


Came across this today.....don't know if it's been in this thread before.......

Link>>>>>>NASA GORDON COOPER, UFO ARE VISITING EARTH

(Gordon Cooper is one of America's first astronauts.......4.08 mins. long.)

You presented the Belgium radar data again as evidence, yet you have been shown examples of atmospherice phenomena exhibiting the exact same behavior (some 40 or 50 pages back). You have yet to show any data saying why this radar data has to be ET and not the atmospheric events earlier described.

You could not then. Has anything changed in the mean time?



They tend to work scientifically, which is apparently something you don't really like. But I guess I can ask the same questions as I asked at that time:

1) Do you refute that plasma phemomena can exhibit the same behavior as your radar data (give a radar return, move highly erratic, fast moving, high accelration rates)?
2) Can you explain in detail how such is discriminated in the F-16 MTI (moving target indicator). I have already explained in detail the components in the F-16 radar in operation at that time (1990).
3) And then what sets ET apart from the above.

Still waiting...

Cheers,
Badeskov

There has been a long discussion about it some 40-50 pages ago, but one option is an atmospheric plasma. The main point is that there are actually atmospheric events that have been seen and measured and they exhibit the exact same characteristics (fast moving, high acceleration rates, highly luminous, give strong radar returns, move erratically, reacts to external stimuli, etc.).

The point the Nigel is making (which I strongly agree with) is that while it could be ET, it could also be something else. We can't prove that it was at atmospheric event. But we can't disprove it either. We simpy don't know. So while it might have been ET visiting, it could just as well have been something much more Earthly.

Cheers,
Badeskov

No, they are not. All his references are valid. His extrapolations from said references are most certainly not! Plain and simple, while it could be ET, it could also be a lot of other things - we just don't know.

Cheers,
Badeskov

...which...makes...it...valid! His bias that it could only be one thing is evident but seems valid given the circumstance of say the examples he is using. If pilots are reporting this as the last example he used then it is either man made or it isn't, if it isn't man made then the MOST probable is that it is of nonearthly origin. I certainly am not saying this is fact especially considering the environment I currently am writing this, but would agree that it is a valid statement.

Sky says:what I am interested in, because highly experienced aircrews with years of experience were describing saucer-type crafts that were maneuvering around their aircraft, which then proceeded to zoom off at hypersonic speeds.


I think this clearly indicates the examples he is using or referring to and anyone can google such info obviously rules out plasmic or other atmospheric conditions, these are solid objects that seem to exhibit intelligent control, now are you saying we have an understand of atmospheric conditions to such an extent that for this example would explain this or hoax, or misidentification. Stanton Friedman is known for saying "some, and underline some about ten times" because in these cases the most probable conclusion based off of what we have so far would indicate non earthly origin even if they just come from a moon of jupiter still non earthly. No we don't know what is going on but to say saying it is ET in cases such as this is not an invalid statement, a leap I would agree but not invalid.

the whynsos

I've found Klass's UFOlogical Principles to be a good place to start when thinking about reporting done by human beings.

http://members.aol.com/Tprinty/Klass.html
The first:

(Click the link for the rest.)

Human perception is a difficult area to study. Unfortunately, the world is not binary, in which you can say, "If it wasn't this, it must be this." The world (and the human brain) is much more complicated than that.

on that I agree with you Nigel, and that is where me and Sky differ, I say it is most probably ET not definite.

They have been seen and measured, so where is the pictures and videos showing this plasma? I imagine they look like flying saucers and some are one mile long and have windows on it?

First we need to find the ones who are not plasma, if we can determine that some of these are solid crafts then we found the reptilians

Did bad just say what I think he just said? Sounds like the tide is turning.

In some cases, the encounters lasted an hour or longer, as in the RB-47 case that took place over multiple States, and that is a lot of time to figure out that the object wasn't anything of natural origin, especially since that encounter lasted an hour and a half and was not only tracked on ground-based radar, but was visually confirmed by the aircrew and recorded on the aircraft's own ELINTS systems.

The maneuvers were that of an intellilgently controlled craft.

You keep on thinking that! Just remeber, it can be dangerous to wear a tin foil hat for too long.

We can look at what was known in many cases.

* The same craft was described as a metallic saucer-shaped craft by the aircrew with rotating beacon lights and portholes. That in itself, excludes natural phenomena.

* The same craft was tracked on airborne and ground-based radar whose recorded performance characteristics exclude all aircraft.

* In some cases, radar tracked the object at hypersonic speeds, which left behind no sonic boom. We can then refer to the Aeronautical Information Manual and FAA regulations (AIM/FAR Part 91, 817 and Appendix B, sections 1,2, and 3, to determine that since the craft didn't leave behind any sonic boom, it wasn't an aircraft and in many cases, the craft was flying at velocities much faster during the 1950 than even the X-15 and even NASA's hypersonic experimental craft of today.

* The craft also have the ability to hover silently before zooming off at hypersonic speeds.

And with that, the question is: Do we have such a craft?