I don't think so!!

Looking back into history, the skeptics demanded physical evidence, and said that only physical evidence would prove their existence. So, I turned the tables on them and told them that I didn't have a flying saucer in my garage, and since they thought that physical evidence is needed to prove the existence of anything, I then proceeded to demand physical evidence on Pluto, and what happened next was that they couldn't deliver!

So then, it came down to the data evidence, so I provided such data evidence, and the next thing I knew, the skeptics were crying, "foul ball!!"

They do, they're just not the "experts" who agree with you.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

Your buddy Tim Printy does a good job of presenting conflicting information about the pictures here:
http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/hoax.html

Time Magazine notes that the experts determined that a hoax could not be ruled out:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...38878-2,00.html

ad nauseum.

You just don't seem to have gotten the point. The sighting remains unexplained to this very day and look what you posted!



BTW, in additon to setting Tim Printy straight on the Air Force's C-54, Kirtland AFB, and the atomic bomb, I might add that Tim also claims that a lighthouse is responsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents.

I sent Tim a message on why the lighthouse can't be seen from the base. A another skeptic found for himself why the lighthouse can't be seen from the base when he went to the area to see for himself.

So what it is, Tim is not playing with a 'full deck' and you are playing along with him! Better check up Tim's sleeve!! He has already cheated the likes of skeptics, such as "Access-Denied" and many others.

I might add that while Tim Printy and UFOlogist were fighting over Charles Moore's false Mogul flight trajectory, I was the person who had already determined that no such flight ever occurred!

That has to be the most ludicrous arguement to date that I have ever heard of.


Skeptics don't really have a defensive other than logic. And logic as a defense always wins against weak minded claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.



You can put me on the list of never convincing me with your rhetoric.



This is my favorite of all your posts so far, no facts are needed just a little magic! Just click your heels three times and say their's no place like zeta reticuli!




Ya got me, im totally discredited now. You win, I suck. actual distance is 3.6 trillion miles give or take a few ) Which of course makes my arguement even better considering that UFO pictures out there have about the same resolution as our current pictures of Pluto. You kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one. So lol to you!

You're making that up, and still comparing apples to oranges. Physical evidence would provide absolute proof, but that is not necessary and I don't believe anyone has said it is necessary. All that is needed to move forward is to provide reasonable evidence. You have failed to do so, and destroyed your credibility by declaring weak evidence to be all the proof you need. Transparent strawmen, invisible allies, and self-aggrandizing fantasies support your position, though.

Pluto may not exist. All of the evidence we have, however, being repeatable and verifiable, says it does. We can, after all, point a telescope to a particular point in the sky and see Pluto. In a couple of years, we'll even have a probe in orbit around it. If it's not there, then the probe will continue careening out of our solar system and we'll have to adjust our theory of Pluto's existence. That would be pretty extraordinary, don't you think? Your "evidence," on the other hand, is neither repeated nor verified and provides some very extraordinary predictions. Please refer to the common definitions of the words "repeatable" and "verifiable." I have provided them to you in the past.

Perhaps it's just that to overcome your lack of credibility (and that of other UFOligious believers,) we would demand physical evidence from you? Even if I had it from you, as a rational examiner I would doubt its veracity. I would be more apt to believe that you would invent evidence and even believe its veracity internally, than for you to admit that maybe you've been too hasty in your presumptions.


OS

That is what the skeptics had basically told me when I told them that no weather balloon was involved in the Roswell incident. They didn't believe me until the Air Force told them in 1994.

And I say I do get it, but that you missed the point (I rather suspect you do get the point, but won't admit it out of pride or neurosis, still not sure which and they can both manifest in very similar ways.) There are other more mundane explanations that you skip right over on your way to the fantastic, which you then can't (or refuse to) back up with verifiable evidence that can be repeatably obtained.




5 seconds of googling came up with those links and hundreds more. The point, that you missed entirely, was that there are those who disagree, and those who consider alternative explanations with open, rational minds.

It also turned up something counter to this:



And that is that the Trent's had had numerous previous sightings that they had talked about prior to the photos. Upon learning of this, some investigators started discounting the Trent's credibility. Combine that with the above statement, and one or the other is an out-and-out lie. Either he was scared and didn't believe in UFOs before the photos were taken, or he lied about the earlier sightings.

why though? how is that ludicrous? its true, you cant deny that, and you know it. all the have are blurry pics of it. that is all.
so why cant i ask for physical proof that pluto Actually exists. instead of looking at crappy blurring pics, that could Easily be faked.
now its obviously not the best argument, but he has a point.

I am not making anything up! The skeptics did in fact, ask me for physical evidence.



They have! That is why I brought the issue with Pluto in the first place!




History has proven me correct in the past, and that fact cannot be changed!!



Well, we have data evidence that is verifiable, and has done likewise for the reality of UFOs.

Ok, Tommyo. Where can I send the bill for cleaning the Mountain Dew that I just spewed on my monitor? Best... line... of the day...

The fact the sighting remains unexplained to this very day, says otherwise!

Because we have more than just blurry pics of Pluto. We can detect how it perturbs the orbits of closer planets. Plus, we don't need fantastical explanations for how Pluto may have gotten where it is. We know planets exist in our solar system, and we know that there is a lot of "junk" left over out there. We can also predict where it will be at a given time, then verify that prediction with telescopic observation, even if it is blurry. Nobody claims to know exactly what Pluto is and what it's made of, but there aren't many denying that it exists.

hehe thanks are sorry bout the monitor!

If you had reviewed the data on UFOs, you would have found that the data was extraordinary and verifiable in itself.

You see, skeptics just don't seem to want to do their homework.



I guess the magic must have worked, since history has already proven me correct on a number of issues in the past!

Now, this is the problem. The trent photos have not been proven to be a hoax, and just because some de-bunkers put a theory across that strings were used, without the evidence to prove that 100%, then they cant say its a hoax. Now, because it is still a mystery, does not mean it was not a hoax, because there is not 100 % evidence that the object was really there in all its glory. Yes, the man de-bunking the trent photos was the same man using the rather stupid lighthouse explanation. The reason for using this explanation, i put it down to some people refusing to believe that something is unexplained, even to the point where they will use stupid explanations that make et more logical cause in the case.

all they give us, is blurry pics. and expect us to accept it. now im pretty sure i believe its there. im just saying, its the same with the ufos and blurry pics. except the fact people have been seeing them for Hundreds of years before they new pluto even existed.

Well, we have more than that on UFO reality!

In fact, we don't even have radar nor ELINT data on Pluto, but we have for UFOs! Besides, millions of people have seen flying saucers through the ages, but those same people have never seen Pluto with their own eyes. Even the discoverer of Pluto has seen UFOs!

Speaking of Pluto and UFOs!!

_____________________________________________________________

An Astronomer's UFO
Science Frontiers

As long-time readers of Science Frontiers are aware, UFOs get little space here. Every once in a while, though, we see something UFOish worth passing along.

The one below is from 1957, and the observer was a famous astronomer, Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto. Tombaugh was an avid skywatcher as well as an acute telescopic observer. He was very familiar with atmospheric phenomena. His experience belies the common assertion of UFO skeptics that "professional astronomers never see UFOs."

What do you not get about "unexplained" that I do get? Maybe we can clear this up if you can you confim this statement: Skyeagle409 states unequivocally that the object in the two Trent photos of 1950 depict a flying craft designed, built, and operated by intelligent creatures of extraterrestrial origin, and there is no other possible explanation for the object depicted in them.

I have never said anything that absolutely contradicts that statement. I stated my belief, and showed a proof of how that belief can be verified. A hoax of that type can be and has been repeated since then. Where's your repeatability on any of your claims?

HHHmmmm
So its logical to say that it was a lighthouse that the witnesess were seeing in the rendleshem case. Thats not logic, thats someone desperate for an explanation. Trying to be "logical" in ufo cases is just as bad as being to open minded and believing in everything in my opinion.

The primitive ways of faking UFO photos, before modern computers, included throwing objects in the air, such as trashcan lids, breakfast bowls, hats, or ordinary dinner plates and photographing them against whatever scenery they thought would look good.

It was usually best to get the object against a clear part of the sky so people could not easily work out its size.

Today its just as easy. Here are some more pictures of "Alien spaceships". Have a look at the picture from Stockholm, Sweden, no string...Does that mean its real!??

http://csicop.org/si/2003-09/faking-ufo-photos.html


Sky, posting a 50 years old picture of a UFO claiming that it hasnt been debunked yet, so it must be a real alien ship is silly, to say the least.

Did we have such flying vehicles that are capable of hypersonic flight and not produce a sonic boom? If not, then throw in the ETH.

yes there were, and it has been proven to be a hoax. See previous posts.

Faking UFOs is easy and nothing new.

I have even exposed Billy Meier's photos as fakes, and in some cases, they were of such poor quality, they weren't really the effort to even comment on them, but I did so just the same.

In the JAL/UFO encounter, can we safely say that incident was the result of someone throwing a trash can lid into the sky as the B-74 passed overhead?

You mean the post linking the website of Tim Printy, who has an outstanding record for getting things wrong?

We don't have "smell" evidence to support the existence of Mars or Venus either. The point you make is completely irrelevant.

No they have not! thats his opinion, and its not 100% fact! And ike i said before, his explanation for the rendleshem case was a lighthouse, and im sorry, but he was wrong on that one.

Well, I'll give you credit for not making the statement unequivocably. I have not thrown out the ETH, by the way. I simply refuse to throw out all of the other more plausible theories in favor of the one I want to be true. To do otherwise is foolish.

Also, what in the Trent photos leads you to the conclusion that they were photos of a craft doing hypersonic, sonic-boomless maneuvers?

Wow, thoughs photos just look so fake! they dont even look like they are part of the backround at all. I think if the trent photos are fake, then im sure they were not done using computers

Mars and Venus are seen, just as flying saucers have been seen for centuries.

But, didn't the COMETA Report add the ETH?

In regards to hypersonic flight and not producing sonic booms, UFOs were doing just that during the 1950's.

Sure. Throw me some "ufos in medieval art" claims. I like those. They've been debunked, but they're fun to think about.

"Flying saucers" used to be "flying cigar-shaped floating craft." What are your ancient "flying saucer" claims?

Also, you never denied the contradictory statements Printy pointed out regarding all of the problems with the Trent photos in that link I sent earlier. Why's that?

I'm sorry. I should of posted this as anyone with a 1/2 of brain and a little common sense could of seen this as a fake, that it has been proven over and over and over as a hoax. I'll remember to do that next time. Again I apologize for your misunderstanding.

(My apologies for the delayed edits. I'll try to be more complete before my initial posting.)

COMETA kept ETH exactly where it is appropriately classified: as a hypothesis that might need further study. ETH is not even a theory, since it provides no testable predictions given the available data. A hypothesis doesn't make claim to proof.

Well, that told me! I dont think you understand. I am not saying that its ET, and i am not saying that it is not a hoax, but what i have seen so far nothing proves that it is a 100% hoax, and this is my own opinion, ok.

So what do you think of the lighthouse explanation? Do you think that was a "logical" explanation?

Well I heard that Mars smells like chicken

Sure they have!! Why are they still "unexplained?"



Tim has a one-tracked mind and that is what gets him into trouble, but I have to admit, I do have good things to say about him.

After all, he has provided true facts on radar technolgy that proved me correct on certain radar modes as they pertain to aerial tracking.

Coincidence? http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2157765

I think not! Mmmmm.... Martian McNuggets with pseudo-sauce.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.



Fun stuff.

I guess.

Here is one of the UFO case files the COMETA Report mentioned, which was also reported in the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. In fact, I posted this case file recently.

_____________________________________________________________


SAN CARLOS DE BARILOCHE 02/08 (AFP)
"On Monday morning, around ten eye-witnesses reported that, moving at high velocity and defying all known laws of physics, a white flying saucer perturbed the air traffic at the San Carlos de Bariloche airport, located 1 800 km S-W of Buenos-Aires, during 15 minutes on Monday to Tuesday night."

"The pilot of the plane had to accomplish a desperate escape maneuver not to collide with an unidentified flying object (UFO)" said several members of the Argentine military air forces. These testimonies were confirmed by Major Jorge Oviedo himself who "also saw a UFO" and who stated that "a power failure occurred at the same time in the city and all recording and measure apparatus at the airport were jammed". Several inhabitants claimed they saw the UFO just before the power failure."


http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm

__________________________________________________________

That incident it typical of what has been going on in the skies, but what makes that incident unusual, is that it was reported to the press.

Most incidents of that nature are not reported, so the public is largely unaware of what is taking place in our skies even as we speak.

For the most part, they are explained, mostly as people seeing what they want to see, and lately that has been "enhanced" by the lossiness of JPEG compression.

For starters:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-36843_ITM

Well, if I had something better to do this afternoon...

Sure. Throw me some "ufos in medieval art" claims. I like those. They've been debunked, but they're fun to think about.




That is a real far stretch even for you sky! To claim a ufo on painting made 100's of years ago when the artist can't clarify the claim you are making? Well in that case, I say that they are showing a Hot dog, that is aimlessly perusing the skies looking for a bun to settle into. Hmmm, Can't tell that I'm Hungry huh?

I think we have another unknown dead here!!!!!!

Are you going to answer my question! What do you think about the rendleshem forest ufo lighthouse explanation???

And, there was no way the Mr. Trent could have created the kind of background lighting and visual effects that analyst had discovered from their analysis, and the reason how it was determined that the UFO was some distance away from the property and quite large.

That is why the photos remain a mystery today.




And, there was no way the Mr. Trent could have created the kind of background lighting and visual effects without a computer in 1950, that analyst had discovered from their analysis, which is the how it was determined that the UFO was some distance away from the property and quite large.

That is why the pnotos remain a mystery today.

Hartmann used these known distances of various objects in the photo to calculate an approximate atmospheric attenuation factor. He then measured the relative brightness's of various objects in the photos, and demonstrated that their distances could generally be calculated with an accuracy of about +/- 30%. In the most extreme case, he would be in error by a factor of four. He then wrote: "It is concluded that by careful consideration of the parameters involved in the case of recognizable objects in the photographs, distances can be measured within a factor-four error ... If such good measure could be made for the UFO, we could distinguish between a distant extraordinary object and a hypothetical small, close model."
Hartmann then noted that his photometric measurements indicated that the UFO was intrinsically brighter than the metallic tank and the white painted surface of the house, consistent with the Trent's description that it was a shiny object. Further, the shadowed surface of the UFO was much brighter than the shadowed region of the water tank, which was best explained by a distant object being illuminated by scattered light from the environment. Hartmann further wrote that "to the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw." In his conclusion, Hartmann reiterated this, stressing that all the factors he had investigated, both photographic and testimonial, were consistent with the claim that "an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of the two witnesses."

Controversy - The Skeptics' Case

Not satisfied with Hartmann's findings and totally devoid of any evidence that the UFO was a hoax and hanging from the wires, UFO debunker Robert Sheaffer argued qualitatively that the haze in the photos (the haze veiled the UFO and led Hartmann to conclude the UFO was about 1.3 kilometers distant) could be due to a "dirty" camera lens, and thus the object could still be close to the camera. He further argued that shadows on the garage were strong evidence for a large time lag between the photos, and alleged that the shadow positions suggested the photos were taken at 7:30 in the morning rather than in the evening (the image on the left depicts the edge enhancement technique which, under typical conditions, can reveal the presence of a wire less than a quarter of a millimeter thick at a distance of up to 3 meters).

Dr. Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist, analyzed the original negatives and found no support for Sheaffer's time lag claim. He also repeated Hartmann's calculations in much greater detail, including corrections for lens grease and obtained about the same results as Hartmann originally did. (One other important aspect of Sheaffer's dirty lens hypothesis is that it fails to explain why it didn't affect all objects in the photos, and not just the UFO. All the nearby objects in the photo were all sharp with high contrast, but the objects in the distance such as a barn, a house, trees, and hills (and the UFO), were of low contrast, exactly as would be expected from absorption and scattering of light.) Maccabee calculated the UFO to be over 1 kilometer away, and about 30 meters in diameter and 4 meters thick.
Regarding the alleged reported time the photos were taken which, according to Sheaffer, would be inconsistent with the position of the shadows on the photos, Maccabee discovered that the garage shadows could only have been caused by a diffuse light source, rebutting Sheaffer's argument. Maccabee suggested that a bright cloud illuminated by the evening sun could possibly have caused them. Moreover, neither Sheaffer nor Klass has provided a plausible cause as to why the Trent's would have lied about this, especially since it is immaterial to analysis of the UFO's distance.

Repeaters

In his book "UFOs Explained," Klass argued that the Trent's were "repeaters," citing a story published in the Portland Oregonian June 10 in which Mrs. Trent is quoted as saying to reporter Lou Gillette that "she had seen similar objects on the coast three different times but no one would believe me." Klass further quotes from a newspaper article written about 17 years later, in which she is quoted as saying "We've seen quite a few since then but we didn't get any pictures, they disappeared too fast."
Klass indictment of "repeater" is based solely on Mrs. Trent's claims as reported in the paper. Assuming the account is accurate, an important detail however, is that Mr. Trent apparently did not agree with his wife. For reasons we can only guess, Klass did not include in his book Mr. Trent's response to the following question: "why did you wait so long before telling anyone about the photos. Trent admitted he was 'kinda scared of it.' He said: 'You know, you hear so much about those things... I didn't believe all that talk about flying saucers before, but now have an idea the Army knows what they are."

This suggests that Mr. Trent had not seen any UFOs before and was skeptical about flying saucers (hence his wife's claim that "no one would believe me") ... until he saw one himself. One get's into a logical muddle here. If, as Klass believes, there are no saucers and therefore the Trent's couldn't have seen one, then Mrs. Trent must have been lying when she said she saw several previously. On the other hand, Mr. Trent was telling the truth about his skepticism, although he could well have supported his wife's claim by saying that he too had seen several even if he really didn't believe they existed. After all, if its a hoax, he could say anything to support the hoax story. One way to get out of this muddle is to assume that they both told the truth regarding previous sightings (Mrs. Trent had several, Mr. Trent had none and didn't believe in saucers). Of course, Mrs. Trent previous sightings certainly could have been honest misidentifications... and if this were so then she wasn't really "a repeater" unless you classify a person who repeatedly and honestly misidentifies objects as "a repeater".

sorry that I got a job and family since you want a quick answer I'll say it is not a hoax but complete misidenification. I wanted to get more time to address this but I do have a life and don't have the ample time that I suppose you have to rebuke nonsense.

in other words. "i have no explanation for it really. so ill just say im busy and cant type anymore"

smoooooooth

Real cute. Here is a good article and for the record I don't endorse the #2 section, since I have high respect of military and don't see this as a possibility. Section #1 has been reported many times by many people on the base. Unfortunatly a few that don't have a grasp of reality hyped it up to a whole new level.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/67th-arrs-ufo-hoax.php

Since you cannot answer the question, it makes no sense trying to debunk that, for which you do not have a knowledge of.

check the follow up post there sherlock.