Seems as if he's upset that you won an argument against him, and knows that you can do so in the future. But the Shag Harbor incident was a very interesting case... in fact, me and my dad traveled down 300 kilometres just to go to the witness site, and the tiny museum they have down there. Very interesting stuff... they even had official documents regarding the incident, I do believe. Hell, there was even a newspaper article about it.

It is a very interesting case and I am waiting for the UFO debunkers to claim that Jupiter was responsible.

You mean it WASN'T!?

Seems as if he's upset that you won an argument against him, and knows that you can do so in the future.

If you're referring to me, I'm not upset the he "won", because I've showed in this thread numerous examples of how Skyeagle misuses and abuses evidence as well as the forum--for one example, he deliberately posted misleading links in clear violation of the board rules, and I called him on it.

Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude
lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)

00 200 150 7000
01 200 150 7000
02 200 150 7000
03 200 150 7000
04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000
05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000
06 270 560 6000
07 270 570 6000
08 270 560 7000
09 270 550 7000
10 210 560 9000
11 210 570 10000
12 210 560 11000
13 210 570 10000
14 270 770 7000
15 270 770 6000
16 270 780 6000
17 270 790 5000
18 290 1010 4000
19 290 1000 3000
20 290 990 2000
21 290 990 1000
22 300 990 0000
22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock

Sky,

You've posted that table many times now. You've also posted this chart several times in the past (example link):


This graph (performancegraph1.gif) is from the temporaldoorway.com site and doesn't appear to be active anymore, but I saved a copy.

You've claimed over and over that both this table and this graph are irrefutable "data evidence," yet if you compare them you'll see that the time scales don't match. Why is that? Which one is correct? Was either one of these sets of data produced directly by the Belgian Air Force? If so, could you please provide a reference?

I do believe that I have posted that there were more than just one incident! Am I correct?

I know where you are going, and I am glad you are here, because you can answer the questions that other UFO debunkers are faliling to do. In regards to that incident:

Was that object, ours? Or, of someone else?

You might want to review the incident here and understand where the original source of the data that I posted, came from, which can be found in the latter half of the third video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoBL_Wpx7Fo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQ6W9eduV8...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5-Qh7HFGg...feature=related

Since neither pilot actually saw what their radar was tracking,...

I'm not sure I'd be willing to state right now that the radar trace definitely shows the performance of a physical object.

It might be a real object, but then again it looks to me an awful lot like a radar processor struggling with poor data.

I watched those three videos, but I didn't see your table of numbers. You've posted data sets with two different time scales. I'm just trying to understand which one is correct.

This thread is like a marathon.....Skyeagle is running the whole thing...but the debunkers are coming in
like a relay team...passing the baton.....now the cavalry has arrived.... let battle commence.....

And, I can't get any of the UFO debunkers to answer the questions I posed to them!

As a pilot of almost 40 years experience I can tell you that it is very difficult to see any aircraft from above at night with a well-lighted background, such as you would expect from a city, even with navigation lights, and I was using radar flight following.

Nope. The lead F-16 pilot also noted in his interview that there were times when his radar and that of his wingman, matched with those from dissimilar ground-based radar systems, so we know beyond any doubt, the object was an intelligently controlled craft.

I can tell you that the original source of my data came from the latter half of the third tape, and I might also add that the Wall Street Journal--of all publications-- mentioned the Belgian incidents as well.

Not for want of trying though, eh?

They don't answer questions they don't like.....they've very tricky picky.....

Because the fact of the matter is, what he's got is the best there is. But even if it's intriguing, it just ain't proof. It won't convince science, which is something we've been saying overandoverandoverandoverandover.

Three scientists see two circular UFOs with cabin on top

Date
August, 1970 Location
Tanami Desert , Australia


Dated: August 1970
Location: Mongrel Downs Station near WA border half way between Alice Springs & Darwin

Names have been witheld by request.

Three very highly educated and qualified people:

One Geophysicist; Two Geologists, all involved in Mineral Exploration and Mapping, employed by a mining company in Tennant Creek working in the Tanami Desert. One of the witnesses has since gone on to become a member of parliament in Western Australia.

Land marks - Granite & Rabbit Flats Northern territory.

At the time of the sighting we were on a property called Mongrel Downs Station close to the western Australian boarder. At the time of the sighting we stopped our two land rovers at a location known as the Three Officers Hill, which are several hundred feet high in an otherwise flat landscape for virtually hundreds of miles.

We saw 2 UFOs same design size with pulsing flame or lights yellowish flashing from underneath "exhaust" at about a second between each flash the distance was about only 300 yards from our position at about eye level with an above ground level altitude of only several hundred feet.

It appeared as if they were on a "Sunday afternoon cruise" the UFOs traveling at slow speed maybe 50 miles per hour were visible until they disappeared across the horizon they took a good minute or to to pass our position and disappear.

Design

Circular with a cabin on top with portholes both visible both with pulsing flame/light flashing at about 1 second intervals the size according to my friend T our Geophysicist about thirty feet in diameter. The colour was silver the machines were silent and no exhaust smoke but the underneath exhaust flashed about each second.

From our position we were looking north the UFOs were traveling west to east at low speed and low altitude, therefore we had a remarkable dress circle view of the objects.

The atmospherics was a typical Northern Territory winters day, the time was about 3.00 p.m the sun was just to the back of us, not a cloud in the sky visibility about 20 miles.

The UFOs were traveling at a slow speed and maintained that slow speed and low altitude maybe for 500 yards above ground level despite the time it took to pass over our dress circle position. They traveled one behind another.

The motion of the UFO traveling ahead appeared to be vibrating at the front the other following close behind in smooth motion perhaps in the slip stream (was the front one wounded???)

Several days latter we returned from our bush location and called into Mongrel Downs Station and informed the owners of these events.

The owner of Mongrel Downs Station informed us that several months earlier strange lights were observed coming from the area we had been in late one evening

They informed the Department of Civil Aviation Darwin of the happenings and we called on R.A.A.F Officers for details and were subsequently and officially informed “Surveyors were working in the area (“That's b******s'). In those days surveyors could not work at night besides any human species wondering around that ultra remote area would be known and permission to be on the property would be sought by the owner.

The Government explanation was a load of bull Diane. I remember this event as though it happened just yesterday.

They are among us observing the bloody mess we are making of our beautiful planet.

Food for thought.

For example should you draw a line between the US submarine base at Exmouth Gulf of Western Australia and the US base at Pine Gape in Alice Springs one could maybe construed that was the approximate line those space vehicles were traveling on ???.

Almost immediately after our sighting I purchased Bruce Cathy's book Harmonic ECT and in his book he has pictures of these things, some were absolutely identical to what we saw on that sunny afternoon at Mongrel Downs Station Tanami Desert Northern Territory mid August 1970.



Case ID: 451

Cigar-shaped UFO with portholes seen by Honeywell metallurgist

Date
November 22, 1961 Location
Near Grafton, Nebraska, United States

Source: NICAP / Richard Hall, 1964 (original case in "The Honeywell World," Jan. 1962)

Hovering Cigar-Shaped Object

A Minneapolis Honeywell metallurgist, Melvin C. Vagle, Jr., saw a cigar-shaped UFO on November 22, 1961. NICAP later learned of the sighting through the Honeywell newspaper and obtained a first-hand report from Mr. Vagle, as well as a detailed painting of the UFO done under his supervision. [See sketch.]

It was a clear starlit night about 7:00 p.m. (CST). Mr. and Mrs. Vagle were traveling north on U S. Highway 81 approaching Grafton. A red light in the sky west of the highway up ahead attracted their attention, then other associated lights made them think it might be an aircraft. As they neared the site and pulled alongside they saw "a cigar-shaped object hovering at a sharp angle over a plowed field. . At the lower end. . . there was a bright 'flashing white light ann at the upper end there was a steady red light. Along the length of the fuselage there was a row of square-appearing ports, illuminated with a white yellowish light."

The UFO seemed to be motionless until, when the Vagle's son started crying, they drove on. Then the UFO appeared to drift westward across the highway. Earlier the same evening a farmer in the Grafton area had seen a reddish cigar-shaped UFO west of Grafton and reported it to an area newspaper. Accompanying Mr.Vagle's report to NICAP was a letter from the farmer confirming the basic points of his sighting, which occurred at sunset. The farmer could not see any "ports", only a dull reddish glow from the UFO. The object vanished behind a dark cloud after about 10 minutes.

Case ID: 644

And, I can't get any of the UFO debunkers to answer the questions I posed to them!

So, even SCIENTISTS won't convince SCIENCE?


Even the existence of ET craft has been accepted to the world of science... don't ever say that it didn't/doesn't convince science, as it clearly does.

The reason for that is simple, we just dont know what it was, if it was anything at all. Radars arent infallible. People arent infallible.

As long as people like Badeskov, MID, Pericynthion and the rest of us skeptics here, can blow holes in your "evidence" this tells me that the UFO mystery will continue. To this date, the evidence for aliens on Earth is...

..well, lets just say, less then 100%.

The reason for that is simple, we just dont know what some of these reported UFOs are/were, if anything at all.(?)
Radars arent infallible. People arent infallible.

Do you mean to say that in cases that involve multiple witnesses, on the ground as well as in the air, with radar confirmation from more than one installation, that the most plausible explanation is to assume that all of the radars malfunctioned simultaneously and the witnesses were lying and/or hallucinating? One might make the case for a plasma explanation, such as ball lightning, but the movements recalled by the witnesses and demonstrated on radar that involve high speed manuevers and frequent change of direction in apparent reaction to external stimuli militate against such an atmospheric hypothesis. Need I mention the fact that Menzel and Klass tried the plasma explanation decades ago and were torn to bits by Dr. James E. McDonald whom happened to be an atmospheric physicist?

You people just won't be satisfied until the government gives you a body on television, will you? Even then the skeptics will say "It's fake", "it's hoaxed" blah blah blah.

You people just won't be satisfied until the government gives you a body on television, will you?

Even then the skeptics will say "It's fake", "it's hoaxed" blah blah blah. Methinks that people are just too damn ignorant to accept what has been placed in front of them, because they are too proud of their own opinions to admit that they just may be wrong. If you (and the other skeptics) had even bothered to look into this subject a little deeper than what you have been, look at countless stories and read many books on the subject, then I do say that you will probably change your opinion.

The reason for that is simple, we just dont know what some of these reported UFOs are/were, if anything at all.(?)
Radars arent infallible. People arent infallible.

As long as people like Badeskov, MID, Pericynthion and the rest of us skeptics here, can blow holes in your "evidence" this tells me that the UFO mystery will continue. To this date, the evidence for aliens on Earth is...

..well, lets just say, less then 100%.

And to me thats not good enough.

Even the existence of ET craft has been accepted to the world of science... don't ever say that it didn't/doesn't convince science, as it clearly does.

I do believe that I have posted that there were more than just one incident! Am I correct?

I know where you are going, and I am glad you are here, because you can answer the questions that other UFO debunkers are faliling to do. In regards to that incident:

Was that object, ours? Or, of someone else?


If you fail to answer the question, then the UFO debunkers will acquire yet another default.

I have to further add that I have disagreed with UFOlogist who have claimed that the object was a classified aircraft. You might want to review the incident here and understand where the original source of the data that I posted, came from, which can be found in the latter half of the third video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoBL_Wpx7Fo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQ6W9eduV8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5-Qh7HFGg...feature=related

Presuming that we are still talking about the Belgian Radar Data, on the contrary, I have shown you links to a report stating that plasma phenomena can indeed:

* Be detected by radar (and we are not talking hazy distributed returns, but surface returns just like an aricraft would exhibit
* Can move very fast
* Can accelerate and make sharp turns
* Can have geometrical shapes
* Reacts to outside stimuli

Can you please tell me specifically what piece of data tells us that it can't be an atmospheric plasma event?! A radar in STT mode has no bearing on this as a plasma phenomena would yield a surface reflection, thus the radar would see a very nice, localized, fast moving return from such. You can't filter it out either, so you would have something moving like an aircraft, just with capabilities far beyond ours.

ET...Timetravelers...Dimensional travelers...The next gen Chines spy probe...etc...There is no way we can know for sure. And if we dont know for sure, like hazzard said, with 100% sertainty...Well, then we are not soo sure after all, are we!!??

Some people saw "things" in the sky. Radar, so they claim, tracked it. Chase planes, so they say, followed it..never saw the UFO visualy.... and the UFO crashed into the ground without leaving a trace... and thats the end of the story....

Sure, You can believe it was ET. You can claim for a fact, that it was visitors from another planet, But based on the "evidence" I have seen here....Dont ask me to believe it.

Do you mean to say that in cases that involve multiple witnesses, on the ground as well as in the air, with radar confirmation from more than one installation, that the most plausible explanation is to assume that all of the radars malfunctioned simultaneously and the witnesses were lying and/or hallucinating?

One might make the case for a plasma explanation, such as ball lightning, but the movements recalled by the witnesses and demonstrated on radar that involve high speed manuevers and frequent change of direction in apparent reaction to external stimuli militate against such an atmospheric hypothesis.

Need I mention the fact that Menzel and Klass tried the plasma explanation decades ago and were torn to bits by Dr. James E. McDonald whom happened to be an atmospheric physicist?

Sometimes, it helps to know the rest of the story before trying to debunk the Beligan incidents.

The object never "scraped the ground" nor were there any evidence that it did. I guess you forgot that MSL is not the same as AGL, but it seems the UFO debunkers were unaware of that fact.

As I've said before, it helps to know the rest of the story before going into debunk mode, but I am glad you are here because I am going to pose this question for you that other UFO debunkers have been ignoring.


Was that object, ours? Or, that of someone else?

The answer is, who knows?
We don't know what it was, or even if it was....
If we assume this data is accurate...it will produce an hypothesis, and nothing more.

The lead F-16 pilot involved in the incident did in fact, state on video, that the object wasn't weather-related. So, are you going to imply that the F-16 pilot didn't know what he was talking about?

There this thing about UFO debunkers who think they know it all, but in reality, they don't, telling experts that they don't know what they are talking about, so is it surprising as to why the UFO debunkers confuse planets as the UFOs that maneuvered around aircraft, which were also tracked on radar?

In the event that we were being visited, is it rational to assume that there would have to be absolute, irrefutable proof of such? Of course there would have to be such proof in order to be considered scientific fact; however, it seems as if debunkers use the lack of proof as evidence of absense.
The point I am attempting to make in this thread is that the strength of the evidence is clearly indicative of solid somethings invading our airspace. I mentioned that we have the tire tracks of the UFO, we just don't have the front fender.

The weight of the evidence can influence the plausibility of hypotheses, not prove anything incontrovertibly.

My point here is not to claim that science is wrong, science indeed has it right, what I am saying is that the ridicule factor is ill-founded. This is not to say we should go easy on the charlatans, or let them be, but that we should not make sweeping generalizations. I am of the opinion that the weight of the evidence is such that a more thorough scientific investigation is long overdue.

This thread is like a marathon.....Skyeagle is running the whole thing...but the debunkers are coming in
like a relay team...passing the baton.....now the cavalry has arrived.... let battle commence.....

Unfortunately, there has to be a baton passing effort.

Sigh.

Poor old you lot, eh ?

No peace for the..............

The object never "scraped the ground" nor were there any evidence that it did. I guess you forgot that MSL is not the same as AGL, but it seems the UFO debunkers were unaware of that fact.

Since Belgium is a country which has elevations ranging from sea level (The North Sea coast), to ~ 2300 Feet MSL, the data which shows 0000 altitude means one of the following:

If it is AGL data...the thing, whatever it was, was on the ground.
If it is MSL data, the thing, whatever it was, was a truly miraculous piece of work, because at 0000 MSL, it would be somewhere between ground level and 2300 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND (it would be at sea level AT 0000 MSL, over terrain that was above sea level)!


Most pilots realize this (There's a reason why my altimeter indicates 470 feet when my main wheels touch the ground at my local airport. If it indicated 0, I'd be 470 feet underground, and have had a really bad day!). Most Alien believers don't.

Thus...it most certainly not only indicated it was on the ground...at unheard of speeds, but in fact (and if MSL) was under the ground.

And if that's the case, it's a hell of a radar. It tracks an intangible object, and then tracks it below the ground...

I have answered....."I don't know--that is, it's unknown" is an answer. It's just not the one he wants, which is for the skeptics to come 'round to his way of thinking and declare he's right, that the data he's provided (overandoverandoverandoverandover) is proof we're being visited by extraterrestrials. Guess what? It's not proof. Sky could end the whole thing easily by saying, "That's the best evidence there is of ET. There is no (public) proof of ET, and while I believe the government knows more than they've told, this is it as far as we know. I also believe there will be more coming out, but right now, this is the best we've got. Take it or leave it."

Because the fact of the matter is, what he's got is the best there is. But even if it's intriguing, it just ain't proof. It won't convince science, which is something we've been saying overandoverandoverandoverandover.

Before we get off the topic of the Belgian radar data, though, I have one more question. Let's assume for the moment that Skyeagle's data table is an accurate transcription of the radar time history:

Time Hdg Speed Alt
(s) (deg) (kt) (ft)

00 200 150 7000
01 200 150 7000
02 200 150 7000
03 200 150 7000
04 200 150 6000
05 270 560 6000
06 270 560 6000
07 270 570 6000
08 270 560 7000
09 270 550 7000
10 210 560 9000
11 210 570 10000
12 210 560 11000
13 210 570 10000
14 270 770 7000
15 270 770 6000
16 270 780 6000
17 270 790 5000
18 290 1010 4000
19 290 1000 3000
20 290 990 2000
21 290 990 1000
22 300 990 0000
22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock

If we look at the period from 9 seconds to 12 seconds, the contact climbs from 7000 feet to 11000 ft. That's a 4000 foot climb in a total of three seconds, giving an average vertical velocity of 1300 ft/s, or about 790 knots. But the radar indicates that the target airspeed is only 550-570 knots during this same period. How can this be?

Peri,

Very good observation! Admittedly, I didn't look that close at the data itself, but rather the circumstances under which it was taken. While I was actually thinking that it was some natural phenomena that was recorded, the present data points more towards a tracking error somehow. And that makes the whole data set rather questionable.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Very good observation! Admittedly, I didn't look that close at the data itself, but rather the circumstances under which it was taken. While I was actually thinking that it was some natural phenomena that was recorded, the present data points more towards a tracking error somehow. And that makes the whole data set rather questionable.

Thanks, Bad. I'm not an F-16 radar expert, but I can't think of a reasonable explanation for that data if we assume it's the track of an actual object. A very large latency (on the order of several seconds) in the display of target velocity data to the pilot might help align things, but that doesn't seem reasonable or acceptable for a pulse-Doppler radar designed for air combat.

Regards,

P.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rcv_-OX9-WQ&feature=related worth watching for the interview at the end with Professor Emile Schweitzer *sp Physicist, lecturer at a Belgian military college and the expert brought into to analyse one of the Radar *lock on tapes*......."I'm going to be fired by my colleagues, but i think that, extraterrestrial intelligence is very highly likely"... referring to the possible explanation of the data

Hi Firemoon,

I watched said video and I honestly found it less than intriguing. It is basically a recap of what we already know (and what has already been touched upon in the present thread).

1) A series of sightings was reported in Belgium
2) At some point a radar track was detected and F-16s were sent up
3) The F-16 tracked the target for a bit, but never got a visual before it disappeared

That's it. We don't have anything else. As we have seen, said radar data is already highly questionable leaving us next to nothing.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Yep. I'm well aware of the difficulty of spotting traffic at night. Of course, an F-16 pilot has the advantage of having a heads-up display which can place a nice target designator box right over the top of a radar contact, which makes spotting the target an awful lot easier. Bottom line is that the pilots didn't see anything, so they were unable to visually verify what the radar was tracking. Doesn't prove there wasn't anything there, but it does leave open that possibility.

Umm, no. It only shows that there was something in that portion of the sky that was trackable by radar. It says nothing at all about the identity of the radar contact.

I'm just asking a simple question, Sky. Why is it so difficult to answer? Which of the data sets you've been posting is correct? I'm well aware that the Belgian incidents have received media attention. That has nothing to do with my question.

The reason for that is simple, we just dont know what some of these reported UFOs are/were, if anything at all.(?)
Radars arent infallible. People arent infallible.

As long as people like Badeskov, MID, Pericynthion and the rest of us skeptics here, can blow holes in your "evidence" this tells me that the UFO mystery will continue. To this date, the evidence for aliens on Earth is...

Sky,

Reading what I wrote would clearly illustrate that I am not debunking the Belgian reports.
I am simply taking them for what they can offer. If they are real, they offer no conclusions......their words. You offer a conclusion. That's erroneous.

If the radar data is real,...

Since Belgium is a country which has elevations ranging from sea level (The North Sea coast), to ~ 2300 Feet MSL, the data which shows 0000 altitude means one of the following:

If it is AGL data...the thing, whatever it was, was on the ground.

If it is MSL data, the thing, whatever it was, was a truly miraculous piece of work, because at 0000 MSL, it would be somewhere between ground level and 2300 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND (it would be at sea level AT 0000 MSL, over terrain that was above sea level)!

Skyeagle wrote...
O - M - G ! ! I dont know about the rest of you...but to me, that was almost too painful to watch... the way poor SKY got his butt handed to him.