I heard it all before from the skeptics who'd claimed that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident, but that all changed in 1994 to my delight!!

That steak thing reminded me of the way debunkers work:

If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a moose.


* That is why the skeptics have been claiming that the UFOs, which maneuvered around aircraft within the earth's atmosphere and tracked on airborne and ground-based radars, were planets.

* If the craft zooms off from a standing start at hypersonic speeds, then it is a weather balloon.

* If the UFO circles around a satellite that is sitting more then 20,000 miles in space, then it is an aircraft

* If the UFO circles around a jet bomber for over an hour, then it is a propeller-driven DC-6 airliner on a scheduled flight that took place at velocties and altitudes far above the capabilites of the DC-6.

I had to cringe when I saw the name of Tim Printy. He knows me very well!!!

I taught him a history lesson on the reality of the Air Force's C-54, Kirtland AFB, and the first atomic bombs. It seems that Tim got his facts all wrong and I told him about it and I even took the liberty to hand him out the real facts in order to get him on the right track.

You can read his correction on his website. His correction is written in red and was the result of our battle, and when the smoke cleared, he was forced to make his correction.

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

On another note, you should have checked on the history of Phil Klass. He, and CSICOP, were the focus of comic relief when they claimed that UFOs, which trailed a B-747 and tracked on Air Force and FAA radar systems, were Juptier and Mars. Unfortunately, the explanations went to the press and afterwards, it was found that the planets were not even in the same region of the sky as the UFOs. When they discovered their mistake, they made a second one by claiming the UFOs were ice clouds, but again, the nature of the radar contacts and a check of meteorological conditions, had proved them wrong once again, and on a comic level as well.

In regards to the UFO fly-by of a DSP satellite, Phil Klass once again, made himself the focus of comic relief by suggesting that the UFO was an SR-71.

In regards to his plasma explanation as the answer for UFOs, he took a serious hit when the plasma UFO photo he depended upon, was found to be hoaxed and he didn't keep it a secret on how he felt afterwards. After that, he dropped his plasma explanation.

Just a few samples of where Phil Klass has been coming from

Actually, scientific analysis have done just that (disproved atmospheric phenomena). Also, visual accounts disproved atmospheric phenomena as well since the aircrews were describing flying machines, not natural phenomena.

The debunkers tried to use atmospheric phenomena before to discredit certain UFO encounters as was the case involving JAL Flt 1628. Analysis of weather conditions proved that the skeptics were wrong .

What if the duck is wearing a tin foil hat though? DONTEATUS

Just for curiosity, who you think are flying in this machines, what kind of aliens do you imagine is more viable, greys, reptilians, the blond ones or et from spielberg movie?

couldnt agree more, well said sky eagle


URV

The crew visually confirmed what they saw was a light, correct? They didn't actually see a metallic craft, is that right?

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html

I read his correction. Here it is, straight from the link you provided:

Yeah, you really put him in his place. Besides, what difference does the source website make, when the information is factual? I think I've read that somewhere. The fact that human perception is often faulty is factual, which is what I was saying with Klass's principles. Nice try at spinning it to your side.

That is correct, and it definitely wasn't the landing light of a propeller-driven DC-6.

Not in any of the UFO case files in question, it isn't!

And Tim Printy wasn't the only debunker involved in that argument, but also another debunker who first contacted Tim in the first place and threw him into the meat grinder.


The whole point is, that was a clear case where the debunkers went into full debunk mode and not knowing what they were talking about.

I am going to simply say that they are extraterrestrials.

Over the years, case files have slowly been released by governments around the globe so let's see just how much more information is released over the next few years.

My prediction still stands and hopefully, the revelation will be made before the 15 years.

The hard evidence that you seek pertaining to UFO's can be found in scattered videos across the net. I have found one such site that offers actual video coverage of nasa and russian astronauts filming their encounters, some of which have been edited and cut into small clips which can be found on youtube. I own a copy of this particular video which can be found at www.enigmatv.com

Some of the clips that were cut from the original video can be found here:

The tether incident can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ox6BtwDmm3c

You'll notice that all of the ufo's have the same defining shape, kind of like the mellinium falcon on starwars.

hope that helped........ Wendy

How about the thousands of sightings in the New Jersey area in the late 70`s? key words here are sightings,and thousands. not one or two and by a old drunk walking home late at nite. Lots a trained sightings . Like air traffic controlers police,pilots. But Skyeagla knows the truth is out there! prove it otherwise.

What this comes down to, is your perception. How do you percieve lights in the sky? UFO, or plane? Real? How do you refine real? If it is something that you can see, or tastes, or smell or touych, then it is electrical signals interpreted by the brain. Unfortunately, we won't know for a long time what this is. A change is as good as a rest, so I will now change something here. I will now stop looking for proof of UFO'S. I belief that the evidence will show itself when it is needed.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

There is going to be more comeing out about the Stephenville UFO case this week here in texas. It was on the local news! WoW! local news thats big news LoL you ever wonder why the truth never gets national hype? Well no matter its all in the preception ,how you look at anything right? Lights in the sky! stars,Planes,birds,what ever you want to see. The real test of time is whos around when its proven to be real.4 yrs and counting LoL DONTEATUS P.S You go skyeagle do you know how many post you have in here on this subject?Keep the fight up! many to come!

You can go out on any given night and see moving lights in the sky. In fact, it is recommended that pilots leave their landing lights on below 10,000 feet for safety reasons; day and night and even my own aircraft was mistaken for a UFO when I left my landing light on as I flew through the San Francisco Bay Area, and I did so for safety reasons as well.. It is what those other lights are doing that sets them apart from the rest, and they were not meteors because meteors do not maneuver around nor fly in formation with aircraft.



If the object is saucer-shaped, which conducts right-angled maneuvers beyond 40 Gs, and is hypersonic, then the object is not a plane. Since it does not have jet engine fan and compressor blades, propellers, nor rotor blades, then the saicer-shaped object presents a different radar signature on the radar screen than aircraft with rotating blades.

Such objects are very real and were not the result illusions nor mirages since mirages can't be seen more than 2 degrees above the horizon. In many cases, the UFO encounters were verified by other witnesses and radar systems, so they were very real by that very fact, which a number of government officials around the globe have been saying for years.

How can we know for sure...I meen, if this is ET, this is going to be unexplained untill the day one crashes in the midle of a city.

That would be the job of the unit that decended from the U. S. Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, whose existence the U. S. Army has now confirmed and add that it has now been confirmed that a flying saucer did land around the Kirtland AFB area and knocked out military and civilian radar systems. The object was listed as an Unauthorized Aerial Object (UAO) confirming that the ojbect was in fact, a flying machine.

So what we have here are added pieces of the overall puzzle that has been revealed over the past several years in regards to the UFO enigma and I am expecting even more dramatic revelations in the coming years before full disclosure is finally made.

What is happening now is that government offiicials around the world, pilots, scientist, military officials, some of the astronauts, cosmonauts and intelligence officials are finally revealing what has been hidden from the eyes of the public for decades about what they know about UFOs. Now, major news organizations are reporting on UFOs; even the Wall Street Journal.

So because it wasn't a weather balloon it ws defiantely an alien craft?

I was reading today that many conspiracy theorists can develope mental disorders, that's the reason I try to stick with Occams Razor. Do you know what that is? (That sounded antagonizing, it wasn't mean't to though )

According to the debunkers, weather balloons are capable of hypersonic speeds and can fly circles around aircraft.



When a debunker explains that hypersonic weather balloons can fly circles around aircraft, their lack of a normal state of mind begins to become evident. When a debunker explains that planets can fly circles around aircraft and can be tracked on radar as the planets are doing so, all doubt is then removed.




Yes, and why the ETH is the logical explanation since it has been proven that no aircraft on earth can do what real UFOs can do, especially since no natural phenomena was responsible.

No. Human time travelers can be a logical explanation too...

Debunkers are known to make claims that have gone down in flames.

You are known to make up faulty claims.
Where has what I said been shot down? It hasnt been by anyone, and certainly not by you.

LOL!!

I've shown that your plasma explanation was thrown out years ago by the top UFO debunker, Phil Klass!

In fact, the Belgian UFO incident was carried on NBC the day, which simply means that your plasma theory isn't taken seriously by the experts today either.

Did you even read what I just said?

Ignored what you said?!

The only one ignoring what I said seems to be you.

The only one ignoring what I said seems to be you.

Subject: Two Silvery Circular Objects "Dog-Fight" and Maneuver at 400 m.p.h

http://nicap.org/hamilton520803dir.htm

Hmm, ever heard of imagination and perception of cloud shapes Sky? Thats what most of these cases are based around.



Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

No they are not, and the visual descriptions that were back on radar proves my point.

When a cloud is not a flying saucer

Clouds are not metallic, nor do they have portholes and rotating beacon lights nor do they manuver around aircraft and then zoom off at hypersonic speeds.

Phil Klass and CSICOP tried to use ice clouds to explain away the JAL UFO incident and got laughed out of the building, that after they tried to pin the UFOs as Jpuiter and Mars in regards to that same incident.

I agree, and so should sky, surely with all of the eroneous comments that he has made, and of course, how could we forget the petty arguments he has given back about how something is alien when it obviously is not.He must be able to see that time travel is a possibility. These are the types of things we here are dealing with. It's laughable. How queer...


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

He is now accepting that the UFOs in question are real, but I have to disagree with his theory because what he is basically saying is, the reason why a B-747 crashed in California in 1986, was because it was shot down over Germany in 1944.

Skyeagles old documents are just what they look like, more numbers and anecdotes. I know that you and the rest of the believers in the UFO community feels that this is plenty of evidence to believe, but it is not for the rest of us.

If the data and evidence was as conclusive as you say, there is not a scientist in the world who would not want first dibs on it. I believe that is why many scientist, against their better judgment, join in on the speculation, just the slightest chance to be the one who authors the paper, "We are not alone", is enough to make some jump at the chance.

While we all cant for the day that paper is written, using our opinions to usher it here faster is poor science. Until we have that strong conclusive evidence, we only have unidentified objects of unknown origin. Thats it.

Again, if your evidence is so fool proof, why is not taken up by mainstream academia? A great big conspiracy perpetuated by academia and the United states government? Or maybe your "evidence" is not as fool proof as you would believe??



Bottom line, without the so called "smoking gun" type of evidence the extraterrestrial hypothesis will remain only a speculative hypothesis. The ETH could very well be correct...We just need some solid evidence, something beyond radar hits and anecdotes, before we can say for sure that some UFOs=ET space craft.

To label something unidentified an alien space craft is a huge leap of unscientific nonsense.

Could alien visitation be real..?

Yes, it could be, so could certain psychic abilities, ESP, Ghosts, EVP and probably various other ideas as well. Could some UFOs be time travelers, maybe. There is no way we can know for sure.

The problem is always the "evidence". Snidbits of video, numbers, stories and photos are thrown to us like a proverbial bone to the dog. There is a total lack of scientific Method and peer Review, to sort out the fake from the actual. So it is because of this present situation that we all must remain skeptic.

But, until we have some type of irrefutable evidence that these speculations are reality...they remain speculations.

Should we look seriously at some of these ideas, especially UFOs?

Well, I sure as heck think that we should, but we must also keep in mind that people can, and do, speak from a position of belief, yes, even in 2008.

Despite the considerable efforts of the few that believe they have seen or otherwise witnessed a UFO. Not one has been able to show proof that what they saw was of alien origin. Of course there is always going to be some things unexplainable. That is only because we do not see well what it is.

The believers often take refuge to the -"what else could it have been"-"We dont have anything that can do that" safe house. That however is not evidence, no matter how much we would like it to be. And the faliur of a skeptic to explain a UFO does in no-way make it alien.

I think that all the known UFO cases so far have been cases of misidentification lies or hoaxes, some perpretrated by the observers, and some on the observers. As of yet I havent seen any evidence that would totally convince me of an Alien presence, in any shape or form, on Earth.


Like I said before, future scientific discovery will dictate fact from fiction, and as a skeptic I dont want it anyother way!

That is basically what the debunkers told me when I told them no weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident and look who bit the dust in 1994.




Like CSICOP, now known as CSI, Phil Klass and E. U. Condon, Donald Menzel, Dave Thomas, the Skeptic's Dictionary and of course, the Skeptical Inquirer. Their theories have been falling aport over the pass several years and will continue to do so as more information are revealed. They have been taking some serious hits over the past several years.




Once again, what I have posted before.



Fact of the matter is, we are already on the road to disclosure.

I might also add that scientific analysis has already verified many of the UFO case files in quesiton as reported, including the JAL incident over Alaska and the Trindade UFO case file.

Time travel of any sort that enables information to be sent into the past is supposed to be impossible.

To propose such time travel as a solution to an existing puzzle requires rejection of the laws of causality as they are currently understood, as well as the proposition of a new set of laws.

No such set of laws is on the table.

Indeed, it seems that any such redefinition of causality is logically impossible.

This is why every introductory level physics student understands that literally traveling into the past is not just impossible but nonsensical.

As an explanation for the observations we're discussing, "time travelers from the future" is therefore a non-starter. How much more likely is the ET hypothesis? It's hard to say, since the ETH is possible, and the time-traveler hypothesis (strictly speaking) isn't, and division by zero is undefined.

This is why nobody who is "in a position" offers any time traveler theory as a serious explanation for what we call UFOs. In fact, among many of them, the ETH has such currency that these strange craft are not called "unidentified" at all. They are simply referred to as extraterrestrial craft.

What I don't understand is why so many debunkers would dispense with causality itself rather than entertain what is really a rather bland proposition, which is that there are other intelligent creatures, and that they have come here in nuts-and-bolts craft. It's the most parsimonious, least problematic explanation for what we are seeing. Nothing outrageous about it that I can see. That certainly doesn't prove it, but it certainly places it far ahead of competing explanations.

I disagree. Human misperception, hoaxes, and outright fraud is, in my opinion, the simplest, least problematic explanation.

I certainly admit that the ETH is possible, but it's hardly ahead of competing explanations (of which three are above).

I put their time travel theory in place of past explanations m that included "purple dragons," "flying monkey's," etc.

The jury is still out on that one!



You're telling this to a 3rd year university physics student



1. According to our known physics, faster than light travel is also impossible. How likely is it that aliens would travel dozens of years if not more to travel to Earth and not make contact?
2. Everything is a possibility, including time-travelers.
3. Ill finish when I see your next reply.

Oh, and there are theories in which time travel is indeed possible. Hell, thats why there is so much speculation about time traveling occuring with the start of CERN.

Now, the debunkers have advanced to time travel from "flying monkeys." Hmmmmmm

What is next?? Automobile tires.

That's an extremely problematic explanation for an event like the Belgian Flap, to name one.

Human misperception of ambiguous stimuli can be flatly ruled out. If you have to ask why, then please read the executive summary.

That leaves fraud. A fraud on this scale would require the grandest conspiracy ever discovered, encompassing levels of society from ordinary citizens and the gendarmerie all the way up the chain of command of a NATO power, and including such officials as radar operators and jet fighter pilots as well as the command structure in which they operate.

Please recall that any crime, including fraud, requires both motive and opportunity. No one has proposed a motive for the nation of Belgium to defraud itself and the rest of the world, much less a means by which such a hoax might be perpetrated. This relegates the hoax hypothesis to the ranks of the very silliest conspiracy theories. It doesn't make it past page one.

The day that somebody proposes a possible motive and means by which this huge criminal conspiracy could be executed, it might become a candidate. Two decades have not been enough to furnish either. Motive and opportunity. The thing they teach you the first day in detective school. It's really that simple.

Why self-styled "skeptics" would uncritically accept a grand conspiracy to commit fraud without so much as proposing a motive and means, I have no idea. It doesn't seem thought-out in the slightest.

I travel back in time almost every day sometimes 70 yrs or more and see through the eyes and minds of Giants! when you build old machinery like I do you feel grateful for the skills and ability to do such a job each day Time waits for those that see it in a defferent light! And dosnt all light travel at the speed of light? So we do travel through time and Space! Look up cause thats where it all Is! DONTEATUS

That's a nice strawman. I was responding to your more general post above, not something specific like the Belgian case.

Not really. Sending information into the past violates causality, period.

Such a thing is nonsensical.

If you propose that this nonsensical thing is "possible" in some weird sense, then you must propose an alternative model of causality to that which is used in science.

Until then, "time travelers from the future" is just another incoherent or irrational proposition. It is exactly like an explanation requiring that the same thing was in two places at once, or that two different things were in the same place at once. Strictly speaking, not sensible.

There is no such problem with the proposition that nonhuman intelligences exist and have come here aboard craft.

This makes me wonder why you would favor time travelers over ET as a possible explanation or even place them in the same category.



Yes, I am. Why is it necessary to inform you of a famous paradox? Why is a Junior in physics placing "travelers from the future" in the same category of plausibility as extraterrestrial intelligence?



That is difficult to calculate, isn't it? But as long as it isn't strictly nonsensical, it has a big leg-up on time travelers from the future.

Second, who insists that if ETs are here, they have not "made contact?" Haven't they, indeed, according to proponents of the ETH?

Do you mean to ask why certain elements of the security establishment would refuse to acknowledge such contact, if it has taken place?

I hope you can imagine an answer to that one.

Third, many things that seem supremely unlikely according to our best calculations are matters of bland fact. As a third-year physics major, you should be able to think of a number of examples offhand. Assigning a low probability to an event-- especially in such an arbitrary manner as you've done here-- never, ever rules out its occurrence. Indeed, "unlikely" events occur all the time.



Weak. To make "time travelers from the future" a plausible hypothesis, you'll have to explain a way around paradox of causation. Until you (or anyone) manages that, it is just another instance of gibberish, like being in two places at once.

Again, the ETH, whatever its other problems might be, does not suffer from any such glaring logical flaw. So I have to wonder why it's dismissed with such prejudice by people who call themselves skeptics, while half-baked sci-fi and conspiracy theories are aired so carelessly.

Sometimes they aren't even half-baked.

The test of a general theory is to see if it holds up in a specific case.

If it doesn't, then it is not a good theory.

That's Science 101.

But OK. If your hoax or misperception theory does not apply to the Belgian flap, then what explanation would you propose instead?

http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm

That's a nice rebuttal of what seems to be a half-witted report I'd never heard of by an organization I'd never heard of.

Cut and paste aside, I am still wondering how you might explain the events over Belgium in 1990, as reported by the Belgian Air Force. The link above is a long way from addressing the facts of the case. In fact, it's a polemic. Good as far as it goes (debunking wackos of the type that attach themselves to every unusual event that ever happened), but hardly a theory of what happened.

So? Ideas?