http://www.narcap.org/reports/001/airsafety_p1.htm

There were multiple and dissimilar radars tracking that object and yet, there were no reaction from the object. The reactions only came about when the aircraft locked the object.

Facts, that someone overlooked.

Thanks!

Years ago, KTVU-TV News, Oakland, CA., did a segment on hazards that UFOs created to aircraft, and commercial pilots were voicing their concerns as well because there have been incidents where the objects affected their aircraft.

Here's one example of many.

________________________________________________

November 2000

Mr. Daniels is a pilot with over 30,000 of flight time spanning 59 years. He entered the Air Force and became a B-17 pilot surviving 29 combat missions. After leaving the Air Force he worked for United Airlines for 35 years. He tells about the time in March of 1977 when he was flying a commercial flight from San Francisco to Boston. The plane was on autopilot when by itself it began to bank left. He looked out the window and noticed a brilliant bright light. The first and second officers both saw it also. They were perplexed because all three compasses reported different readings.

…The one and only sighting that I had was in March of 1977. I was flying a DC-10 on a flight from San Francisco to Boston. And it was United Flight 94. We were about halfway between Buffalo and Albany at 37,000 feet, fog cover underneath, dark night, when all of a sudden the airplane which was on auto pilot started a 15 degree turn to the left. And of course I looked out the window and I saw this brilliant light.

The first officer saw it and the second officer got out of his seat and took a look. And that’s when the Air Traffic Control in Boston wanted to know what was happening. So we told them when we figured it out we’d give them a call. And about that time the first officer hit the auto pilot release button and went back to manual control. As I was looking out the window this thing that we had seen disappeared back towards the left of the airplane and to our rear at a very rapid rate. The whole event took place in probably less than three minutes or so…

Well, the first officer’s autopilot, which is connected to the Captain’s compass, is out in the left wingtip of the airplane. And apparently for some reason or another the magnetic force was interrupted to cause the aircraft to veer off course because it is hooked up to the compass. All three compasses were giving different readings, which is very unusual. So what we gathered was it was an enormous magnetic force in whatever that ball was that we saw out there, that white light.

After we turned the autopilot off and the first officer straightened out the airplane the magnetic interference that had made the compasses all different readings ended and all returned to normal. And the object had disappeared away from us. So everything returned to a normal state…

In the past pilots that had seen things and had talked about it were let go. Some were released from their flying and treated as nutcases and things like that. So that was the last I said of it for many, many years.

Quite a few pilots have told me of their incidents and their sightings and what has happened. And one especially, was a sighting back on the east coast and he saw this thing for a long time, something like 18 minutes. And when he reported it to his boss, it was a different airline not United Airlines, they investigated it and the Government said, well, that’s swamp gas. At 18,000 feet, doing 250 knots, swamp gas! No one really wanted to admit that there might possibly be something there.

Welcome!
And there was another meeting of the minds so to speak, where ufologists, including Richard Haines if I'm not mistaken, all presented a case for further scientific UFO studies at Stanford university and concluded that there was ample evidence to move forward with further study of this phenomenon on several levels.
I'm sorry I dont have a source for this as I'm going from memory but this subject has been contemplated by some very qualified folks who were impressed. I'll see if I can find that article as well.

Here is something further on Dr. Richard Haines.

_______________________________________________________

Dr. Richard Haines: November 2000

Dr. Haines has been a NASA research scientist since the mid 1960's. He has worked on the Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab programs as well as several others. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Haines has compiled over 3,000 cases of unusual visual and radar sightings of unexplained aerial phenomena. He notes that numerous foreign cases also appear in the literature and are very similar in nature to the American reports.

In one case here in America, a B-52 captain told him that he and his crew had five round spheres appear just off of each wingtip, behind their aircraft, above the aircraft, and below and they kept up with the plane at cruise altitude and speed. The captain tried to shake the spheres with evasive maneuvers but each sphere kept exact position. There are other cases where pilots look into the transparent cupola of some of a UFOs and detail can be seen inside.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:y4AzF...;cd=1&gl=us


Not surprising as to why I have been asserting that some of those objects are under intelligent control. I have been aware of incidents where the objects came to within ten (10) feet of an aircraft and was never reported in the press, so the public was unaware of such incidents occurring over their heads..

Guess which document covers objects that went from 2000 feet to 10,000 feet in 5 to 10 seconds? No, it is not the Belgian incident.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image116.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image117.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image118.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image119.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image120.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image121.gif

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/disclosu...es/Image122.gif

Indeed. Skyeagles "evidence" has been blown away so many times that I have lost count, hes just to subborn to realize it. He just wont let go of his fantasy.

He cant.

It doesnt matter how many time you ask this question...The answer will NEVER be aliens. Because we simply dont know that. The answer will be the same.

[size="3"] We dont know what it was, and neither do you.

It doesnt matter how many time you ask this question...The answer will NEVER be aliens. Because we simply dont know that. The answer will be the same.


[b] We dont know what it was, and neither do you.

Have you read this thread?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...24012&st=15


http://theroswelllegacy.com/


http://www.stantonfriedman.com/

Wow... there are Flying Triangle clubs!!!!

http://www.phenomenonresearch.com/


http://dbarkertv.com/ft_report.htm

http://www.dcodereport.com/black_triangle_ufo.html


distracted again... This guy seems to have a lot of passion on the subject...


http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...endid=290732485

Just another ploy of a UFO debunker who can't back up his facts nor answer any of the question posed to him by me n the incidents in question, nor even understand this data that is tied to the Air Force report and the radar imagery.

________________________________________________________________________________

Belgian Air Force Report

8. At 00.05 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts.

{signed}
W. DE BROUWER, Belgian Air Force


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

***************************************************************


Now, let's tie that data with the radar imagery below that was presented at the international press conference, which was conducted by the Belgian Air Force. Anything in there about 990 knots?

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/belradar.jpg

Utterly irrelevant, as you have no means of answering any technical questions as pertaining to the presented data set. Even Pericynthion's rather good question about the discrepancy between the listed air speed and air speed derived from the altitude change you couldn't answer. Just because you keep pulling out this and old reports doesn't make your string of logical fallacies any more correct. It rather illustrates the desperation you harbor in this matter, which is utterly baffling.

Until you can answe any technical questions regarding radar systems and how they work I think I'd keep this to myself if I were you and not paint myself further into a corner.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I llove you tap dancing routine, Hazzard, because it is proving what I have been saying all along, and another thing, you have just tap danced yourself into another ***DEFAULT*** in regards to the Rendlesham UFO incidents, but then again, I never expected the debunkers to answer the questions anyway, because they would have to admit that the objects were in fact, crafts.

I find it more practical to try and get the UFO debunkers to answer more questions in order to keep them from going into debunk mode, but, they can't answer the questions because they don't want to get out of their debunk mode.

Let's see where we are at currently as far as their defaults are concerned:

So far, they are:

1. The 1976 Iranian UFO Dogfight

2. The B-29 Incident

3. Shag Harbor

4. The Belgian Incidents

5. Rendlesham Incidents

6. P-61 Black Widow Encounter


Now, it is on to the Japanese Airlines UFO encounter over Alaska, so perhaps, the debunkers can answer the questions in that incident, otherwise, they are going to rack up default #7.

Yes, just illustrates your lack of knowledge on this matter again if you can't see beyond that little fact.



Not really, but how would you know anyway when you don't even know what to look for in Firemoon's post and what he is really asking?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Apparently, I missed it, and I apologize!

You've indicated that you knew a bit about radar, so now, tell us what is going on in that respect? The secret to that answer lies in what I had posted a few days ago, and it didn't involve the data either.

And, since you know a bit about radar, you should know where to go to find my post in that respect to find the answer you are seeking.

Now, what type of radar was used? You will also find your answer there as well, and you should know that answer afterwards since you've indicated that you know something about radar, right?! Now, you are on center stage and tell us how that can be!

Did the Belgian Air Force make that an issue? If not, why?

Getting the debunkers to find the answer for themselves and report back their findings for us all, helps keep them out of debunk mode.

Just another UFO debunker ploy.

What did the radar expert have to say in the video about dissimilar radars and that object? What did he say afterwards in regards to that object? What did the F-16 pilot say? Did the object react to the ground-base trackings from different sets of radars? Or, to the airborne lock-ons?

So please, answer those questions after reviewing comments beginning at the tape timeline: 2:50, and continuing to the end of the tape.

Tnen, tell us all what the professor, who is an expert, has said at the end of the tape.

I honestly don't think badeskov is using a 'ploy' here. He's trying to point out (and has done so many times) that the radar data and the plasma hypothesis are not at odds. In other words, the radar data is not sufficient for us to completely exclude the plasma hypothesis. Badeskov has also stated that he does not exclude the ETH either. At this point in time such cases remain unknown, not definitively identified.



Even if the radar operator's opinion was that the object was most likely ET, it's still just an opinion (mind you, an educated opinion). At the end of the day, after looking at everything we have on UFOs....the definitive answer still remains unknown (from a scientific perspective anyway). This really isn't all that difficult a concept: Everyone is free to conclude their own personal opinion, but not to claim such as factual (at this point in time anyway).

Hi Firemoon,

You raise a very good question, indeed, and as we don't know what really lies behind the Belgian sightings and the radar data, I obviously can't offer you the explanation. I can only explain how a plasma could behave in this context.



That is correct on a macroscopic level, which is what we care about here.



Both yes and no. Ideally we should, however, such a phenomena is basically a study in applied chaos theory and extracting the required is an overly complex task.



This is a very complex question, but I will do my best to explain what I think is going on. Radars working on different bands most certainly can yield different reactions depending on the composition of the plasma at hand, however, I do not believe that had any major say in this matter.

What really comes into play are time constants and energy delivered. When directing a beam of energy (laser, radar waves) at a plasma some of it will be absorbed thus creating a charge difference across the volumes. The higher this charge difference is, the more pronounced the reaction can be. For instance if the surrounding air is slightly charged as well, the charge difference across the plasma can propel it along some unpredictable trajectory.

So why did it react differently depending on the radar type and mode?! It can actually be explained rather logically. When a charge is building up locally on a plasma, it will be distributed over the whole volume and the distribution of energy has some time constant associated with it. So when hit with a radar pulse, this energy will thus be spread to the whole plasma after some time. This is especially true when considering the ground based radar and also the F-16s radar in search mode. Since you are scanning a large volume of the sky, you really only "paint" the plasma relatively rarely. That means that for each radar pulse, there is ample time to distribute its energy so there won't be any significant, localized charge build-up.

This completely changes when the F-16 pilot shifts to STT mode. Here you now concentrate on your target and in essence fling all your radar pulses at the plasma. In this case it is easy to imagine that the repetition rate of the incident radar pulses is smaller than the charge distribution time of the plasma, thus when a radar pulse hits the energy from the previous hasn't quite been distributed yet and it can result in a significant localized charge build-up and the longer in this mode, the higher it gets. And that can certainly yield a reaction when sufficient energy has been delivered.

To find an analogy, imagine a bucket with a hole in it (plasma). This hole has a size so when you pour a cup of water (radar pulse) into the bucket every 10s, the leakage rate is higher than the fill rate. That is the radar in search mode (you are basically pouring your cups of water all over the place and only once in a while into the bucket). When changing to STT mode, you now concentrate on the bucket and pour all the water into the bucket, resulting in a cup of water added, say, every second. Now the leakage rate can be imagined to be smaller than the fill rate and thus at some point you will get a reaction (spill).

The above will be dependent on a whole host of different parameters and we cannot even begin to quantify those without much better knowledge about the phenomena at hand. But we do know that charge distribution and dissipation time constants can easily be on the order of micro-seconds to milli-seconds, thus definitely in the parameter space defined by the radars in question.

Is this what we are seeing?! I have no idea, but it is certainly a reasonble assertion that it could be what is happening.



I hope the above illustrates that I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that it is utter coincidence I believe (again, without being able to scientifically examine the plasma, we can't conclude anything at all) we saw a reaction to the radar beams directed at whatever it was and I think the difference in reaction was due to the difference in energy per unit time directed at whatever the phenomena now was in the various radar modes.

Just my two cents

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for grammar and typos.

In the past, I have corrected him on facts on radar, and when he continued to challenge me, I used references from the FAA and other sources from air traffic controll, and still, he attempted to cloud up the issue, so I knew afterwards, where he was coming from, and that was just one example.



The reason why "unknown" was thrown in, is because they can't admit that we don't have saucer-shaped crafts larger than ships that are capable of hypersonic flight without leaving behind sonic booms. The data on those objects has been collected and examined, and made avaliable for later examinations to others.

An example was where an aircrew member of an Air Force B-52, tried to look inside a flying saucer as they flew near it, and we didn't have flying saucers that large flying around our missile sites and causing havoc.

Another Air Force aircraft, an KC-135, confirmed that the flying saucer they encountered was larger than a ship and similar to the saucers that was reported by the captain of Japan Airlines, Flt 1628 and yet, another commercial flight encountered the object as well, so the question is:

Do we have flying saucers that are larger than ships that are capable of hypersonic flight without leaviing behind sonic booms?

And, data from scientist in New Mexico shows that they were also trackng flying saucers over their area and in one report, they were observing the objects hovering 200 miles above the Earth, so the question to that is, did we have flying saucers in the late 1940's capable of hovering 200 miles above Earth?

In the case of scientist and engineers in New Mexico, the Head of the rocket program in New Mexico came straight out and said the flying saucers they were observing, were extraterrestrial, and it wasn't an opinion, and he made available, the data they collected.

We have all of the data needed on those objects plus the visual accounts from ground-based and airborne observers that ties in the radar and other data from optical and ELINT systems to make a determination as to whether they are ours, or not.

Sky, Sky, Sky. Your arguments throughout this thread show me very clearly that you want so badly for the ETH to be real, you take anything that remotely sounds like it could be connected to the ETH and grow it and nurture it so it will bolster your own belief system.

Gen. DeBrouwer said, in that clip, that he didn't know what it was, and ETI cannot be excluded. The professor at the end of the clip said, "I am going to be fired by my colleagues, but I think extraterrestrial intelligence is very highly likely." (Or words very close to that effect--I didn't transcribe them.)

In neither case, did the men say that ET is definitely responsible, and they had no proof of it. We skeptics on this board have said the same thing the general said: it may be ET, but then again, it may not be. We don't know. No one knows. Not one pilot got a visual on the "object". No one in the clip you linked to said the words "flying saucer", so don't pull that one.

The Belgian case is unsolved. The actual answer is unknown. Get used to that fact.

You are also, in your post I've quoted above, said,
Now, another misleading tactic you're perpetrating on us here is lumping that statement in with those of the Belgian case. You're implying (no, by the way you've written it, you're stating pretty well as fact) that the Belgian UFO was visually confirmed as a flying saucer. That is simply not true. The pilots never had visual contact, and the ground (civilian) witnesses had varying descriptions. With the triangle photo you keep posting, there's no frame of reference, so who's to say it wasn't taken in someone's garage?

Just another UFO dedunker ploy.

Since you and the other UFO debunkers now have ***7 defaults*** what else can I say?!

Just goes to show where UFO debunkers are coming from, and it isn't from a position of reality.

Actually, not! Because we don't have large triangular aircraft capable of the performance noted by the data nor do we have such large vehicles that do not leave behind sonic booms. Just a hint, you understand.



Yet, another UFO debunker ploy!

I do believe that I have been speaking of a triangle, not a saucer.

Just goes show that UFO debunkers will trying anything to push ahead their debunking routine and here is just another example.

Oh, this is too funny Seriously Sky, lets stick to what we know are facts (and they are preciously few and far apart) and discuss from that. There is no ploy here except the urge to have a reasonable discussion based on what we know. Having to weed all kinds of stuff out first isn't reasonable

Cheers,
Badeskov

I honestly don't think I am either



Exactly, all we currently have is opinions. We can discuss the preciously few facts we have, but they are not enough to formulate a conclusion from. Thus I have an opinion, you have an opinion and that is really all that we are left with.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Have you answered the questions ot those incidents? If not, then case-closed!

Now, the next incident is that of Japan Airlines Flt 1628, and the same questions applies to that incident as well, beginning right now.


Japan Airlines Flt 1628

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5IKmWDmHk


In the video, what is reported at timeline: 5:20?



Were those objects ours? Or, those of someone else?

Well, not so much as one eyebrow raised in regards to Adamski/Godfrey....

So I'm guessing that since there's no 'expert' analysis that conclusively proves that this was a close encounter of the 3rd kind, that the believers (and one name in particular springs to mind) have defaulted on this one. Guess we'll just have to be content with 'Unexplained'.

Pity since, like any good who dunnit, it reveals a lot about a persons ability to think for themself and put forward their own arguements as to the how, what and why of the case...

edit:typo

I think NigelTM listed what was said very well, but I will take the time and look through it again, taking notes this time. I have no recollection of anybody stating as fact that it was ET, but I will make sure I don't miss it this time.

I will also read through your answer to Pericynthion again, but I don't remember that you really answer the question. If you did, I apologize.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Nice retreat. But I agree, case is closed. It is unknown.



I need a little time to refresh that incident.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Then, answer this question in regards to radar technology in 1952, which was the year of the Washtington D.C. UFO inicdents.

***Was radar technology reliable enough to be used by air traffic control?***

M'eh? Where does he get off with posting this kind of detritus? No way he'd answer those kind of questions.
Last time I asked him (skyeagle409) a technical question pertaining to radar data (with the hope of actually learning something), it was about 5 pages of duck, dodge weave, sidestep and finally some bullhonky about how he could have just made up my reference and put it out there for me to find.

Guess, in addition to a selective memory, he also has trouble lying straight in bed as well...

edit:clarification/context

Retreat??? Just another UFO debunker ploy.

Since the questions went unanswered, the UFO debunkers acquired another default, so now, it is on to the JAL encounter, however, I mentioned before that I wanted to keep the Belgian UFO incident open.

I guess you kinda missed that, which was evident when you posted "retreat."

Thanx Badeskov the very same thought had occurred to me in this regard, but that leaves us with the likes of the P61 incident which was using, to the best of my knowledge, the SCR-27O RADAR array but it still produced the same effect with the Plasma. Not sure how that fits into the scenario you suggest.

In the end i believe it could be part of the answer yes, but the truth is , in many ways, it is as out there as believing they are alien in origin. There are also a plethora of visual accounts where there was no RADAR lock on at all but the "Plasma" still sped off at incredible speeds.

Like i say, I am pretty sure the plasma model will explain some of the sightings down the years. The Belgian ones, to me, right now, the Plasma explanations rather like. A 4 year old girl wearing her mothers court shoes. Yes, they sort of fit, but there are huge gaps and you really wouldn't want to try and hike a couple of miles wearing them.

Ok so default on Adamski/Godfrey. Next is bound to yield something....

source: http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case636.htm

I am not deliberately trying to cloud up anything, but if I inadvertently do so I profusely apologize. I presume you are still referring to the 1952 case and my statement that radars weren't reliable in that context, correct?! I still stand by what I said, but I think it is more a question of semantics rather than anything else. As you brought it up again a couple of pages back, I explained the background for my statement. If you still have an issue with my statement, then I suggest that you answer that post specifically so we can get that cleared out of the way.

I don't mind being corrected, however, I don't see the basis for a correction here.



The reason why "unknown" was thrown is was because that's exactly what it is, unknown.



Obfuscation. We have specifically been discussing the Belgian radar case and as argumentation you bring in something completely different. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. You can't use one case to argue for another, completely different and unconnected case.



Again, a tactics of obfuscation. First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Belgian radar case, which is the one we have been discussing here. Secondly, you are automatically on your own authority ruling out natural phenomena, which you cannot do.



And did that become the official explanation or was that his opinion, a spur of the moment outburst?!



Nope, we do not.

Cheers,
Badeskov

But, the CAA had determined that radar was in fact, reliable in 1952, and that is why I posted the history of ATC radar to prove my point.

BTW, have you had the chance to review the JAL video?

QUOTE from skyeagle409
And, data from scientist in New Mexico shows that they were also trackng flying saucers over their area and in one report, they were observing the objects hovering 200 miles above the Earth, so the question to that is, did we have flying saucers in the late 1940's capable of hovering 200 miles above Earth?



Is that another ploy to disengage from what I brought up? I have no intention of letting the Belgian UFO incident go at this point, just for the record, you understand.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Alamogor...O_Aug_1947.html




Not only have scientist ruled out out natural phenomena, but military and radar experts have as well and I posted their comments as well. Ever wondered why UFO debunker Phil Klass, threw away his claim on plasma? Even the Air Force ruled out inversions in its 1969 report.

___________________________________________________

Quantitative Aspects of Mirages

According to a 1969 study by the Air Force Environmental Technical Applications Center, the conditions needed to produce the UFO-like effects attributed to inversions cannot exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Menkello, F.V., "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages," USAF Environmental Technical Applications Center, 1969.

OK, I'll reiterate.

Yes, it was reliable enough to use by air traffic control, as it was better than what they had before. However, they did not have the processing power we have now to by any means reliably automatically remove clutter, false targets and other atmospheric disturbances. A lot of that was left to the operator to assess and I don't believe a radar operator reliably could identify an atmospheric phenomena he/she had never encountered before.

Does that clear it up or do you need further clarification?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for single typo.

Thank you for that admission! I knew as a fact, that radar was reliable enough in 1952. I hope Hazzard reviews what we have just discussed about 1952 radar technology.



It was determined that false targets were not responsible for the Washington D.C. incidents because the radar units were checked and found to be in normal operating condition, and to further add, just as in the Belgian UFO incident, the radar contacts were in the same area as the visual observations.

Radar controllers, experts, meteorologist, commercial and miliitary pilots involved, have also ruled out natural phenomena as responsible for those objects, so my question to you is:

Why are you still trying to push natural phenomena as a possible explanation for those objects when experts, professionals, scientific analysis and others have already dismissed natural phenomena as responsible?.

*Sigh* Do you not see that this reasoning is your personal opinion? It's also possible that there aren't any 'saucer shaped crafts', that what they're seeing is some yet unknown phenomena...this is what so many are trying to tell you. The ETH is indeed a good hypothesis...but it just isn't the *slam dunk* you so much want it to be.



Just because something isn't "ours" doesn't mean it has to be ETs! Proving what something *isn't*, doesn't go the rest of the way to proving what something actually *is*. Why you don't seem to be able to comprehend this is beyond me to comprehend!

Lilly, I have to say there are other things involved in the way I am presenting myself on the UFO enigma. Amongst those, there are those within the military who've
come straight out and stated, that we are being visited by ET, based on the data and other incidents that have occurred over the years.

And, it has been known for years that we have been tracking the objects from deep space as they entered Earth's atmosphere, whch is something that you are not going to find in the local newspapers either.

In other words, there is more to my story in regards to those extraterrestrial vehicles.

Hi Firemoon.



My pleasure, anytime. Actually, I think there are much more interesting cases out there, amongst them the P61 incident and I would much rather dig into that and spend time there. I just take issue when uncorrelated radar data is used as definite evidence for ET visitation, and I just have to bring that up.



Again, there are lots of other cases that are equally interesting, if not more. I personally believe that plasma or some other atmospheric event is the cause in Belgium as pertains specifically to this listed case, however, I cannot and will not rule out the possibility of it actually is ET visitation.

What is much more intruiging are the cases where radar and visual confirmation coincide and yield more coherent and substantial reports.



Oh, I totally agree. There are huge gaps. However, my point is really that the gaps aren't huge enough for us to rule it out either. I have a feeling that this is another one of those cases where we will end up with having to conclude that we simple don't know and then have to leave it at that, no matter how unsatisfactory that might seem.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Relevance?! If I were you I'd be staying far away from the Belgian case as it hasn't really served you well here, has it?!




Nonsense. They ruled out a very, very small subset of atmospheric events. It is your interpretation that you can expand that to cover all atmospheric phenomena, known or unknown, from then and far into the future.

It doesn't work like that.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi all,
I've been watching this post and adding just a little bit here and there and I must say that you all have some good points and I do understand the passion on both sides of this argument. Science is one of my joy's as well and I understand the need for something hard in the way of evidence but a lot of soft evidence has to be basically ignored to not entertain the hypothesis that these craft or phenomenon (for lack of a better term) are intelligently controlled. More than just a few cases seem to have highly intelligent or atleast competent people stating that "Humans could not handle the G's that this craft displayed" (speaking of no particular case here). I know we cant use that to make the jump to ET but whats the next best answer? Just curious because it seems impossible for it to be human yet many say "controlled". Liars? I dont think so but could be wrong.. That many mistaken witnesses, including many cops etc stating that "we dont have anything like that"? I think not because the cases are too similar.
Its hard to make the ET jump but the next best answer cant possibly be ball lightning or venus LOL.. This is just another evolution of the old swamp gas and venus (mistaken identities by poor witnesses) which once again takes competent witnesses and completely robs them of their experience when no one here was actually there. How can ball lightning and plasma balls display intelligent control if you dont take away the witness testimony? Plasma balls dont avoid collisions do they? What else could display this sort of maneuvering? Some of these answers seem ludacris to me but each side of this debate has their opinions!
Well, I wish I knew Its good to see the debates here and some very good points! Thanks!

I seriously don't see the ploy here. Do you think I am paid by the secret government agency whose only task is to hide alien crafts?!

You only have one question, which is obviously moot (and absolutely blatantly so). So I don't see why you keep hammering on it. It has been answered numerous times, it is unknown!

Cheers,
Badeskov

It is a good question, but it is painfully obvious that the tactics is one of subterfuge and evasion. Which is clearly indicative that there is very little technical knowledge behind the assertions to be quite frank.

Cheers,
Badeskov

And they are preciously few and far apart and has nothing to back them up. So where does that leave us?!



And they remain unknown.



By all means of respect, but then you have done an exorbitantly poor job of conveying that. Actually, you basically give the impression that there is much less to your story.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Wrong. You don't have anything to back that up, rather, all the official documentation that is even remotely connected to the radar data set specifically states that it is 3 independent lights flitting around. You are deliberately using wrong data and that honestly doesn't serve you well.



Amazing how simple fact finding is a ploy, but I guess that is because it is poking holes the size barns in your neat, little hypothesis. And I read through Pericynthion's post and your replies to him with a fine toothed comb, and you obviously managed to skirt around every single question he asked you, and even using using the wrong F-16 version in your feeble attempt to show you a grain of authority.

So, why is there a discrepancy between the measured velocity numbers and the velocity numbers derived from the change in altitude?! My guess is that you haven't got the foggiest idea, so why not just admit that up front and then move on?!


Cheers,
Badeskov

Oh, if you call that an admission, the be my guest, you are indeed very welcome.



I am sure the radars were working just fine. And temperature inversions were excluded (if memory serves). How does that exclude other phenomena?



Temperature inversions, right?! That is all, no more no less.



Because it is a possible explanation, just like ET is. And nobody has excluded all natural phenomena, simply because that is not possible. Especially ones they don't know about at the time (or even at the present time).

So back to square one, we do not know.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi Decypher

and welcome to the fray



I don't think anybody calls anyone liars, but it is a fact that witness testimonies tend to be less than accurate at most times. And while we can conclude that humans cannot take such G-forces, it doesn't mean that it is ET either.



Actually, plasma is an option.



What really constitutes intelligent control?! Moving erratically?! Such can easily happen as the scenario is based on chaos theory.



Actually, they can. They can avoid each other or they can stick together. Or be completely oblivious to each other. It depends on a lot of different factors.



Good question. We don't know.