Skyeagle are proud of all the posts, that agrees with his belief, not just Astropros.

Apparently, it has nothing to do with bellief, but what the evidence depicts.

Actually it could be any number of things. prehaps a very intelligent hitherto undiscosvered fish species from the deepest pits of the ocean that the govrnment keeps a secret. (I am not straying from your so-called sense of logic here)

They have developed amazing technology and have, as their intelligence has evolved like ours, become more and more interested in the activities of us, the only other closely intelligent animals on earth that they know of. They use specially designed saucer machines (Sometimes cigar shaped ones too) to explore land from the air. They abduct us to learn about us and mutilate our livestock for their genetic research. The government keeps their existence covered up however, for if it was revealed that there is another earth creature smarter than humans christianity would find itself with a huge gap, and a secret nuclear weapon in the Vatican city would be launched killing everyone.

This is almost exactly the same as many UFO theories, I just replaced aliens with fish.

mabye aliens have cloaking devices that make them look like word leaders and they lok the real leader in dungeons?................just a thought

The folks who build spy satellites for NORAD, have been revealing data evidence and documents that NORAD has been tracking them from deep space. Other reports at sea, have them raising from beneath the oceans as well, which is no longer a secret.

All it takes is simple common sense logic.

First of all, typical reports were that the UFO was visually identified by highly experienced aircrews, military and civilian, as a metallic, flying saucer with rotating lights of various colors and portholes, whose presence was confirmed by airborne and ground-based radars and the perfornance as recorded by those radar systems, confirmed that the object was not only a real object, but intelligently controlled as well/

In addition, the specifics of the radar data proved that the flying saucer wasn't an aircraft, especially since the hypersonic flying saucer didn't leave behind any sonic booms, which is a very important clue.

With those facts in hand, it is obvious that the flying saucer was not ours by those very facts, so once again, all it takes is simple common sense to determine that the object wasn't ours.

They haven't!

In case you missed it, other nations are now conifrming the obvious, and government, and former governments workers, are now revealing what has been known for decades; that ET vistiation is a reality.


Military Nuclear Specialists Testify To UFO Reality

Several military and intelligence witnesses who were Strategic
Air Command ...SAC) and other nuclear specialists have come
forward with testimony proving that UFOs are real and appear to
be concerned about our nuclear weapons.

_______________________________________________________

Do Nuclear Facilities Attract UFOs?

In a well-documented series of incidents in early November 1975, nocturnal lights and unidentified "mystery helicopters" visited a wide spectrum of American military bases and missile sites across the northern tier of this country. Between October 27 and November 10, reports of UFOs over nuclear weapons storage sites were repeatedly made at Loring AFB innorthern Maine, Wurtsmith AFB in Michigan, Grand Forks and Minot Air Force Bases in North Dakota, and Malmstrom AFB in Montana. F-106 interceptors were scrambled out of Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana in response to multiple reports of UFO visits to nearby missile sites near Moore, Harlowton, Lewistown, and several missile sites around Malmstrom AFB.

A similar rash of incursions occurred in December 1948 (Los Alamos), December 1950 (Oak Ridge), July 1952 (Hanford AEC, Savannah River AEC, and Los Alamos), August 1965, (Warren AFB near Cheyenne, WY), March 1967 (Minot AFB, Malmstrom AFB, and Los Alamos), August 1968 (Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota), August 1980 (Warren AFB, Sandia Labs and Kirtland AFB, NM), December 1980 (Benwaters RAFB, Suffolk, England), and October 1991 (Chernobyl, Ukraine and Arkhangel'sk Missile Base, Russia).

.

http://www.cufon.org/contributors/DJ/Do%20...ract%20UFOs.pdf

_______________________________________________________


Chile announces UFOs are for real


On 2nd April 1997, Chilean newspaper "La Cuarta" has the following headline: "UFO Sighting of Arica is Confirmed by La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil." Chile did start to join the small number of countries who officially stated that the nature of UFOs is of intelligent driven flying machines. A DECISIVE OBSERVATION OVER ARICA: Luis Sanchez, Chilean Director of Skywatch International said this was the first time such an organization had attached its name to a confirmed UFO observation statement. La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil wrote that they publicly recognised that Chile was experiencing UFO sightings and that the phenomenon was real, not a natural, conventional phenomenon such as meteorotic or climatic.

_____________________________________________________________

Take off the tinfoil hat bro.

I don't wear a tinfoil hat, so you are wrong again!

Accept reality for what it is! The evidence is overwhelming!

In other words, the possibility of extraterrestrial life existing and being the cause of the visitations is equally as plausible as an advanced race of fish existing here on Earth, and piloting flying saucers? It would certainly solve the problem of distance, but your argument is one intended to tabloidize the idea rather than account for the evidence. The physiology of a fish is such that would impede technological progress. They would have difficulty making tools, for example, considering their lack of manipulative limbs and appendages. Do note that I realize your sarcasm, I'm only pointing out the obvious fallacious qualities of your dismissive argument. The intention was to poke fun at the idea rather than to dispute it. The mention of an advanced race of "fish" brings about a most misleading, but intentional, false image.



Calling someone an armchair debunker, armchair believer, or armchair theorist of any kind, is not comparable to bringing about stereotypes for the purpose of an ad hominem attack to the degree to which you did. Armchair theorism relates to those unwilling to address the evidence, instead putting forth their own philosophical arguments based on their own form of "logic." The tin-foil hat stereotype is not on the same level, as it is comparable to saying: "You're a loser -- get a life." You then took it further to accuse skyeagle of believing in, well, any tabloid subject you could think up. You may not realize it, but your arguments are an insult not only to your intended target (skyeagle), but also to all others who share his hypothesis, even if they go about justifying such a hypothesis in a different manner.

Please do note: I do not think you are the only one at fault here, by any means. I've been guilty more than a few times myself. Due to the natural difference in perspective, I suspect such insults will continue to be tossed both ways, but let's just try to keep it to a minimum and focus on debating the evidence at hand.

This might be the only time you and I agree on something.


Skyeagle said.


We are back to personal fact VS scientific fact. You believe that there is enough evidence to claim that they are here.

I dont.

A newspaper, in Chile, writing about UFOs is hardly what I would call a real space agency, like NASA or ESA, making the discovery of the millenium. That there are ET life!! A news paper in Chile...You must be getting desperate.

Those who continue to toss insults will find themselves on the receiving end of formal warnings. Both Tiggs and myself have posted general warnings, future warnings will have consequences. Let's all please focus on debating the evidence at hand.

Cool site Lilly, err my Italian is shamelessly poor but these caught my eye...

The top one must be some kinda of War Of The Worlds invasion;

Masolino da Panicale
"Fondazione della chiesa di Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma" (circa 1428)
Museo e Gallerie Nazionali di Capodimonte, Napoli <--(EH! my city of heritage lol!)




The Holy Trinity by Bonaventura Salimbeni (1595)

You continue to ignore that data evidence and other evidence and facts, so your statement doesn't fly.

Scientific means have been called upon to verify the authenticity of the case files in question, and in fact, many scientist have also reported observing flying saucers in space, so it is very clear that the flying saucers were not ours, since some of those observations took place years before we launched our first spacecraft, and the scientist documented their observations using their tracking instruments as well so there is no question what they were reporting.


Time for another recap:
________________________________________________________________________

How Scientist Tracked A Flying Saucer

An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded. Analyzing this data later, I can state definitely that:

1. The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.

2. It was about 105 feet in diameter.

3. It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

4. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.

5. At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees -- corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles -- in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.

6. The object was visible for 60 seconds.

7. It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees.

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm
________________________________________________________________________


The question is: why did you ignore those facts before?


I posted the 1976 Iranian UFO incident for a particularly good reason and of course, the objects were in no way, aircraft. One of the pilots involved came forward and indicated the encounter was an extraterrestrial event and the specifics of the encounter points directly toward that direction.

The flying saucers that airicrews were reporting maneuvering around their aircraft for decades, which were also confirmed by mulitiple radar systems, and dissimilar systems I might add, were in fact, flying machines as confirmed by those radar/visual cases, so there is no way that the objects could have been the result of any natural phenomenon--known, or unknown--since they were visually identified as flying machines.

Now, the specifics of their performances were recorded on radar, which corroborated the accounts of the aircrews that the object, after maneuvering around their aircraft, zoomed off at highspeeds, which radar tracked at thousands of miles per hour within seconds.

So, what we have here are visual accounts from highly experienced aircrews and their encounters were also tracked and recorded on radar.

Now, are you going to deny those facts?



Getting desparate? Now, that's funny!!

Apparently, you are ignoring who the original source was, so let's do a recap.

__________________________________________________________________

Chile Says UFOs Are Real

On 2nd April 1997, Chilean newspaper "La Cuarta" has the following headline: "UFO Sighting of Arica is Confirmed by La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil." Chile did start to join the small number of countries who officially stated that the nature of UFOs is of intelligent driven flying machines...La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil wrote that they publicly recognised that Chile was experiencing UFO sightings and that the phenomenon was real, not a natural, conventional phenomenon such as meteorotic or climatic.

_________________________________________________________________

In other words, you have been ignoring the facts as clearly evident since you were unaware of who the original source was. Other data has been ignored as well, so the question for you is:

Why have you been ignoring the data and other documented evidence that are also available under the FOIA and other sources?

I would love to ride in that one skyeagle,to go from 295,000 feet to 426,000 feet in ten seconds and pulll all those g`s would be the best ride anywhere. We dont have anything close to that performance even if we think we have a seceret toy hidden away out in the desert somewhere. And as for the radar tracking we do have the means to track things from deep space,I cant understand why people think we are not looking out into deep space for incomeing. Well keep them comeing always enjoy reading your post.Hold your head high. just DONTEATUS

I did a little digging and found your source (since you seem to be loathe to post your sources yourself).

The above quote came from:
http://www.cohenufo.org/Chile%20UFOs.htm

And about that newspaper.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Cuarta

So consider the source.

And just so you can judge for yourself about that newspaper, here's the link to it (which is also in the wiki link).
http://www.lacuarta.cl/

Doesn't fly, because you were unaware of the rest of the story coming out of Chile.

_________________________________________________________________

Former Chilean Naval Chief Says UFOs Are Real

The former Chilean Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jorge Martinez declared that "UFOs are real". The ex-CNO made the shocking statement during an interview with a Chilean television network. The interview was conducted by journalist Rodrigo Ugarte from Teletrece, in Chile. The retired admiral admitted that he personally witnessed the sighting of two UFOs at sea.

________________________________________________________________


I told Hazzard just the other day, what you don't know, can hurt you.

Hint:
Chilean military says UFO's exist, shows photo's at conference

That's right, it doesn't fly....popped balloons rarely do, and yours has been popped.

Link to the naval chief quote?

I find that very amusing considering that not one of those case files have been refuted by the UFO debunkers, which in fact, remain unexplained to this very day because they involved flying machines that were visually identified as such by highly experienced military and commercial aircrews whose encounters were tracked on radar.

Apparently, the balloons that were poped were not mine! I don't have to tell you whose balloons were popped in 1994 and later when it was found that no weather balloon nor Mogul ballloons were involved in the Roswell incident.




You might want to check this out. It is clear that you are trying to debunk the article.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=88019


Question for you:

Is it true that Chile reported that UFOs are real? Yes, or no!

Please post your answer for all to read so that it is etched in stone.

If those are my only two choices, I'll say, at this moment, no. I base that on a search of primary sources, and not secondary ones. For instance, I found the following secondary source:

http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h97/chip.19971119.html


I also performed a search for the CEFAA, and found nothing. http://www.cefaa.cl/ goes to a "Plesk" page in which the message is displayed.

There are many secondary sources, I will admit, that purport that Chile is investigating "UFOs", but I'd like to see a primary source (say, from the Chilean government) that uses the term "flying saucers", "extraterrestial visitors/life", or some other confirmation about ET.

As has been pointed out to you, even if "UFOs" are real, it doesn't necessarily mean extraterrestrial life is visiting earth.

Do you have any primary sources? Your link to the front page of this site (more secondary/tertiary sources) carries this quote:
even if he was authorized to give the talk, it's not the official position.

Good, now that we have your answer etched in stone, you are incorrect and you would have noticed that multiple sources were supplied and with that, all you had to do was the confirm the authenticity of the story from those sources, which obviously, you didn't. The Santiago Times also covered the story.

You attempted to debunk that website as a credible source without checking for other sources for verifcation. You would have noticed at that same website, CRFAA was mentioned, but it can also be found from other sources as well.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Chile Announce Formation Of CEFAA

The Chilean Air Force (FACH) recently announced the formation of CEFAA, the name of which translates into English as the Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena. CEFAA is attached to the General Administration of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the Chilean equivalent of the FAA. It will study aircraft and radar cases, but will not collect UFO reports from the public.

http://www.narcap.org/case-files.htm

_______________________________________________________________________________


To let you know again, don't try to debunk sources or individuals if you don't the rest of the story.

What are you babbling about Sky?...You have just been caught posting UFO reports as real evidence of ET....

.... from a Tabloid paper in Chile!!!

I LOVE IT! Thats a keeper.


Now your trying to cover your butt by saying that the CEFAA is indeed looking into "Anomalous Aerial Phenomena". I SAY WHO CARES!! We all know that there are unidentified objects flying around all over the place. We all know that people are interested in this...Most people love a good mystery....But evidence of ET??...No dice.

It doesnt matter how many times you try to sell us this... the UFO=ET nonsense ..someone will always call you on it... We need real evidence.



...please hang up and try again. *beep...beep..beep*

How can any of this "hurt" any of us!?


We are on the internet..debating wether there is real evidence, or not, of aliens flying around our planet in their space ships!! Some believe that there is...and some dont....Untill I see some real evidence Im one of the guys that dont!


"what you don't know, can hurt you"

Duh, if you had done some checkinig, you would have found that the local newpapers also covered the conference. Heck, it isn't even a secret either, except to the UFO debunkers!!!

Just goes to show that there are those who don't bother to do homework.

It already has in your last post.

It proves beyond any doubt that UFO debunkers placed themselves in difficult positions because they don't do homework, or do it properly if they do. After all, your own post is that proof.

You spoke of a tabloid without realizing that other news media had covered the conference as well.

Local news papers and Disclosure projects... Thats like claiming that the only place we can see real physical evidence of aliens on Earth is the Discovery Channel!!!

You believe that the first USAF press release in the paper back in -47 was the truth...Just because it suppeorts your belief...Have you ever heard the expression..Dont believe in everything you read in the paper.

Now...having that said...I can understand that your "experience" seemed verry real...maybe even scary..and that you became an instant believer..that..however...doesnt mean that there is evidence enough to convince the rest of us.. If I wuold have been there on that day with you..maybe I would believe too..but I wasnt..soo I dont.

The real evidence, to convince someone like me, not you, is lacking.

Yes..Im sure that you see it that way. But how can this HURT me!!?? Its just a debate among people, on an internet forum, that claim for a fact
that THE ALIENS ARE HERE.. and those who find the evidence a bunch of pseudo nonsense and wishful thinking.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that the conference did in fact, take place, but the UFO debunkers didn't know that.

The Disclosure Project is another example, because some of those cases were already well-documented before the Disclosure Project went public and my own base was involved in one of the incidents covered by the Disclosure Project. The JAL is another case where evidence was collected and presented.

The bottom line is, cease with your debunking routine and do your homework, and do it right.

I have seen Greers Disclosure Project. It was a joke! The claimed to have "registered" 57 different types of alien races!!! 57!!

It was like a Star Wars convention.

Lots of claims and promises by Greer (to the tones of The X-files)..all fell short of any kind of real evidence...The only thing I could think of was...some people need to believe so badly..theyd buy anything. Some people have nothing more in their lives then their belief.

Making money of the gullible is easy...and a bit sad if you ask me.

I've no idea if there are 57 types or not.....but don't you think that if it was all a 'lie' that a number
like 57 WOULDN'T be used....you'd think that that would sound way too zany.....so you'd say 5 or 8 or
at a push 10 - 20...?

But 57....you just wouldn't make a number like that up....in fact...you'd be tempted, I think to change
the number for something more acceptable.....

I think that the DP has come in for a lot of stick over that number....so in a way....it seems like it's not
a number they'd just make up.......so by using that logic....maybe 57 is right....

You are right of course D. No evidence, lots of statements without anything to back them up, and some honestly ludicrous assertions at that, as in the 57 species of aliens catalogued, as if to think that 57 advanced species, capable of interstellar travel, were also incompetent enough to get catalogued by humans, or crash their vehicles.(!)

Without anything to back that up, theres simply someone saying something. Its valueless.

Thats the whole problem right there! Everything that is presented concerning this topic always comes down to "You either believe, or you dont." What we need are facts, not opinions and eyewitness testimony from an Ex this or that.

Its unfortunate that people such as Greer, Icke, Hoagland, Hopkins, etc., turn the UFO mystery into a freak show. The gullible blindly believe the tripe these individuals spew out, while the hard core scoffers jump at the opportunity to use this nonsense to dissuade serious scientific study of UFOs.

As long as these loonies are making a buck with their drivel, the UFO phenomenon will never be taken seriously, as I think it should, by the scientific community.

Could we take a break so we all can go get our deep water rubber boots on? Its getting to the point that we need to get out side for a bit with our cams and take a few pics of ET,so we can really get into this.Or at least get the Gov,to release some of those little aliens they got building all those underground bases. I think for sure there`s a connection between Alien`s and George Bush. Just look at him speak. Its got to be by remote control. But as far as the exibit-A everyone wants They wont let Bush know about them,Its far too dangerous. He would blab it all over the place. IMO

It does seem as if there's an impenetrable fog of balderdash surrounding the subject. In my cynical times, I think that interested parties put this nonsense out there on purpose. And in my even more cynical times, I think that no one has to. Maybe people just come up with all this noise on their own.

Anyway, it makes it hard to say exactly what is and isn't going on.

Only to those who don't know the rest of the story. As I've said before, some of those cases were already well-known beforehand and once again, my own base was involved in the Minuteman missile investigations.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm


Here is a case that was covered by the Disclosure Project, which was reported around the world and on the major news stations in the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sde6crjTBJA...feature=related



So, here is where you ridiculed the Disclosure Project for bringing forth incidents that were already well-documented and availabe under the FOIA. As I've said before, never ridicule that, for which you have no understanding and as was clearly evident, you were unaware of the rest of the story regarding the Disclosure Project.

Where did you get that false idea from???

Check out the history of some of those cases and you will find government documents covering the cases, which are available under the FOIA. In addition to the Japan airlines UFO encounter that was reported around the world, and the Minuteman missile incident at Malmstrom AFB that involved my base, the Rendlesham UFO incidents were brought to light as well, which was a case that involved my compatriots.

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_pres...t_statement.pdf

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_pres...e_statement.pdf

Just bringing reality to the public arena.

Thats exactly my point, in my own cynical way. The waters of UFO investigation are so muddy these days that its almost impossible to tell whats fake, lies, missinterpretations, desinformation, hoaxes, or real.

That a UFO sighting/picture/video clip is real, still, does in noway mean that some of these UFOs are alien spaceships. To some it does, but not to me.

Today, 2008, despite a torrent of sightings for more than a half-century, I cant think of a single, major science museum that has alien artifacts on display or the date of FIRST CONTACT being taught in a school anywere on the planet. Why is that!?

Roswell some say...Sure, the missing verbiage might be consistent with a government coverup of an alien crash landing. But its also consistent with an infinitude of other scenarios...not all of them involving sloppy alien pilots.

UFO studies will continue until all the old cases have either been explained or admitted to being unexplainable, and unexplainable, as most of us knows, no matter how impressive the sighting is to the eyewitnesses or how graphic the stories, its still not hard scientific evidence of extraterrestrials on Earth.

If youre going to claim, that extraterrestrials are buzzing our cities, assaulting the neighbors with an aggression inappropriate for a first date, then I urge you to find evidence that leaves little doubt among the professionally skeptical community known as the world of science. The "It cant have been invented here" or "what else could it have been" speculation by eyewitnesses and other believers is not hard evidence. Far from it.

Sure, there are "Unidentified Flying Objects" studies published everywere, all over the world...But, when it comes to extraterrestrial visitors in the 21st century, the evidence is still anecdotal, ambiguous, or, in some cases, artifice.

This is why"Extraterrestrial Flying Objects" studies are not published in scientific literature. The conclusions are not scientific, it is speculative at best.

And now, you know why I have stated time and again, knowledge, can determine when the "hold 'em, and when to throw 'em."



Not by themselves, but there are other means that can make that determination, and an example is where engineers at Aerojet, makers of DSP satellites for NORAD, have been revealing over the years that NORAD has been tracking the objects in space and within the Earth's atmosphere, which is what scientist in New Mexico were observing and documenting in their own records.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/files/Al...o_UFOs_8_47.gif

http://www.nicap.org/nmexico/miscl/whitesands1.htm

http://www.nicap.org/nmexico/miscl/whitesands2.htm


Subject: Askania Theodolite Films Objects at Tracking Station
Date: May 24 1950
Location: White Sands Proving Grounds, NM

#1580: 1950/5/24 6:0 1 106:20:0W 33:29:0N 3331 NAM USA NMX 5 8
WHITE SANDS PG,NM:2 SEP THEODOLITES FILM UFO JST PRIOR/MISSILE TEST:/r120p354


Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950
2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the
following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation
angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film
was recorded.

3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from
station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

A). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
. The objects were over the Holloman range between the base
and Tularosa Peak.
C). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
D). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit

__________________________________________________________________


The objects were flying saucers, some hovering around an altitude of 200 miles above Earth as noted in one of the documents, and since the objects were visually identified, the question is:

Were those flying saucers the scientist were observing, which were visually identified, and documented, ours?



In 1968, Dr. Carl Sagan at a congressional hearing on UFOs, made it known that he wanted access to Air Force space surveillance data on the objects.


________________________________________________________________

SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION

JULY 29, 1968


Dr. Sagan:
"Apparently what is now happening is that the Air Force surveillance radar is throwing away the data that is of relevance for this inquiry. In other words, if it sees something that is not on a ballistic trajectory, or not in orbit, it ignores it, it throws it in the garbage." "Well, that garbage is just the area of our interest. So if some method could be devised by the Air Force to save the output that they are throwing away from these space surveillance radars, it might be the least expensive way to significantly improve our information about these phenomena."

________________________________________________________________





That is because you are unaware of the rest of the story.







What is that suppose to mean when there are tons of data and other evidence that have been examined and found to have NO earthly explanation?!

You won't find the "Aurora" performing at airshows nor on display in museums either.



Not likely if you knew anything about the military back then.

It is amusing to think that members of the only nuclear-capable bomber group in the world, would confuse ordinary balsa wood and tin foil as remains of a flying saucer, which are materials that school-aged children could have identified, and that a Mogul balloon train could create the size of debris field found on the Foster ranch, especially when records show that no such balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident in the first place.

It had nothing to do with any classified project because the military was unaware of the crash until they were notified.

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.

According to some of them journals articles & literature SE, there still seems to be 'uncertainties & speculations' there among scientists & researchers, almost as if they're contradicting each other with the others above?

Just like everyone else, scientists and researchers all have their own personal opinion on what the available evidence indicates. This solidifies (in my personal opinion) that the UFO phenomena still remains a mystery.

It seems that way, but check this out about the discoverer of Pluto.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf129/sf129p15.htm

How many in here belive the gov.would tell if they really had exibit-A ? Its never,never to be the case.IMO the gov,afterall is the place we keep all the secrets.Now if they could just remember who they told to keep them?Remember the checks in the mail.

Some parts would tell, just not the parts that actually had it.



Always!

yeah apparently people do say things, except no one believes it.

If the ATF were sent to retrieve a crashed saucer, they'd get into a 3-week standoff with it, and it'd be all over the news.

[quote name='Hamlyn' post='2341825' date='Jun 12 2008, 05:05 PM']If the ATF were sent to retrieve a crashed saucer, they'd get into a 3-week standoff with it, and it'd be all over the news.[/quote]

...you mean like with roswell?

Ooh, good point.

They will yank our chains as long as we turn on the tubes about Roswell,Aztec the likes skyeagle has them all on hard drive. But the real goodies Im affraid are really deep in a gov wood crate in some imaginary storage warehouse out in the New Mexico desert. Or was that a movie I just saw? Well any who its the thought that keeps the sprit alive, Remember There be Monsters at the edge of the Earth. DONTEATUS

Like Waco!

Not Roswell.


Seriously though....I agree with Lilly and Rebel about Skyeagles "UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature". Uncertainties & speculations among scientists & researchers is NOT what we want. Thats NOT good enough.

I want all these guys to be as sure as they were..back in the days..about the moonrocks comming from the moon!! I want them ALL , the world wide scientific community, to tell us all that this is real.

A newspaper in Chile, a pilot telling a story, radar numbers thats shows something weird, or 40-50 year old documents only means that we have a mystery. Thats it. And Im not going to leave something as important as this to the Greers, Hoaglands and Skyeagles out there. There are plenty of those out there...with other names...that "know" that some UFOs are timetravelers... or from another dimension. I dont want the pseudo science community to tell me anything.

I want, the world wide scientific community, to tell me that this is real.

Amen to that.....

but as they are dragging their heels....we have to do the best we can with the information etc etc
that we have at our disposal....and make judgements on that...

I published them because of what Hazzard had said. Now, if you examined of what has been written in some of those articles, you will find that in many of them, there were no earthly explanations, and you will note, that the Condon Study is mentioned as well, and even that study couldn't explain up to 1/3 of its cases terrestrially.

After all, how can they explain that metallic flying saucers that were visually identified as such, and exhibiting extraordinary performance levels that excluded aircraft, were ours?

QUOTE

Who do you think the scientific community is going to rely on for information and data on the case files in question?



I do believe that the data released by the Belgian Air Force in 1990 on that triangualar-shaped craft, was released in 1990.




In many cases, there are scientist who have already stated that they have observed flying saiucers and documented their data, and have even stated that the objects in question, were those of ET.