Why would they not? Our technology has changed so rapidly, maybe they want to see what is going on! Are we future allies or are we future threats?
Or perhaps we are their ongoing projects!
Fascinating it is however!

Very fascinating indeed, which I guess explains why we are on this board But I would to some extent disagree with you. While science is progressing at a very fast pace, that doesn't mean that we can exceed the speed of light and thus make interstellar travel feasible. Einstein's theories have proven themselves extraordinarily resiliant and maybe we can bend or break them, but nothing is certain. If said theories turn out to hold water, then interstellar travel would be a bugger, no matter how advanced the species

Cheers,
Badeskov

You seem to be really knowledgeable Badeskov, please tell me what is your viewpoint on this 2012 end of the Mayan calendar I am hearing about so much lately, and do you think it has to do with the subject of ETs. Also have you personally experienced some sightings of strange things in the sky yourself? I came on this board tonight because I along with several other people have seen some strange lights in the sky on New Year's Eve and again tonight as I was outside looking up at the stars there was an object that passed over us with no sound, lights or anything recognizable to us. What do you think?

Thanks! I will give you my point of view, but it is only my personal opinion and I have nothing to back it up with In my mind the doomsday theories about 2012 is nothing but hot air. And ET had nothing whatsoever to do with it. First of all, why would ET set a date? And even tell us about it? Doesn't make sense to me at all.



Yes, I actually have. But I must admit that I am leaning towards ascribing my sightings to something natural that I just don't know about rather than ET, as there is still so much we don't know about the planet we live on That, on the other hand, doesn't mean that I rule out ET. I just find the ET solution rather improbable

Cheers,
Badeskov

I disagree 100% and radar operators will disagree as well. Observe!





Let's hear some more from another radar expert.





No, and if you read the report, you will know why. The pilots reported artificial "structured crafts," not plasmas.



False!!! A very important attribute of pilots are their ability to recognized even the smallest details, which is very important especially as a fighter pilot, otherwise you are going to have pilots shooting down one another in dogfights. In NATO's recognition handbook, pilots are trained to look for certain characteristics of other aircraft. Problem these days are, the enemy is also using the same kind of equipment your allies are using. Case in point, Saudi F-15s shoot down two Iranian F-4, which were made by the same company, McDonnell-Douglas.

I hope you just saw the fallacy of your comment. As a pilot of going on 39 years, I found your comment very amusing and I am very sure my fellow pilots will as well!!






That is good!



Actually, investigators, including the FAA, had already ruled out atmospheric phenomena. That is why it is not in the reports to explained the encounter.

The FAA became involved in the investigations because it was determined that the UFOs were in fact, artificial objects, which violated FAA regulations in controlled airspace.

Actually, computer analysis were done and what was found, was amazing. For an example, look at the three lights. Note the differences between them. In the investigative report, what did it mean?


http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/ufo1.gif

http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/ufo2.gif

http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/traj2.gif

http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/traj.gif

http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/belgium.gif

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Belgium_t2a.jpg

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/8_25trireport.php

And we are back to 1969 where they don't know what we do know. Yes, I agree, inversions would be recongnizable, but plasmas wouldn't.


No, and if you read the report, you will know why. The pilots reported artificial "structured crafts," not plasmas and other more recently discovered phenomena.



Wrong. The superb training of pilots is apparently also their largest problem in cases like this. They can, like nobody else, recognize any aircraft in an instant. The issue is that when pilots see something unknown they are very prone to try and put it into a frame of reference that they know. It is simply a consequence of hard training. They are not stupid, far from it.



No I did not see my fallacy, as I referenced an outside study that showed that pilots generally had a misconception rate of almost 90%. No disrespect meant, it is actually a cadou to the training of pilots.



No, they ruled out known event - they have no way of ruling out atmospheric events unkown to them!!

Cheers,
Badeskov

I thought that this comment deserved an independent answer, so here goes. I am happy that you found it amusing and not offending. I have no intention of offending you and I appreciate the sober back and foth discussions we have. We might disagree vehemently, but as long as we can do this in a polite and non-personal way, I think we both win from it.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Sorry, but the Air Force said in its scientific report, that it would be impossible for the UFOs to have been what you say they could, and besides, the pilots reported "structured craft" not plasmas!



On the contrary, I am right on the money!!



False! I have been doing so for decades when I report another aircraft heading in my direction and sometimes ground controllers will report a certain type of aircraft for you to identify, and in some cases, do so at long distances.



Since the pilots described the UFOs in great detail, as evident in the detail drawing, the UFOs had nothing to do with plasmas.




http://ufologie.net/htm/japan86.htm

In an old report, which has literally been superceeded by new discoveries. Now we know of atmospheric events doing exactly what UFOs have been described to be doing.



No, you are not



Indeed, and I have all respect for that. The only probelm I have is that you have been taught to recognize aircraft and to such a level that you will mosy likely put anything into your frame of reference.



And we know that how?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I think Badeskov's onto something with the specialisation of pilots. When it comes to other aircraft, there's not many people who could do better at identification (the only exception might be air defense operators). However, anything that's not an aircraft, I'm sure there's probably a wide spread in the results.
Case in point, the Blue on Blue contacts in the first Gulf war due to ground attack pilots who couldn't identify friendly ground vehicles from the enemy's.
To me, as someone who's been trained to identify a wide range of armoured and soft skinned vehicles, that's almost incomprehensible.
But, having said that, there's only a few aircraft I could positively identify (and even then I'd need more than a brief glimpse).

It really doesn't make any difference since artificial objects were described by the pilot, not plasmas. Observe!

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case287.htm

Weeks later, other commercial and miilitary aircraft encountered the same object. The military pilot then asked ground controllers about the JAL incident.

So you see, no natural phenomena of any kind was responsible for the JAL, and other incidents that followed. Check it out.


http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3817/jal747cfg9.png

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

i would have to say we need to analyze the trace cases. for there to be trace cases there must be something physical coming and going here either from here on earth or beyond. those are probably our best shot at a answer.

yeah, and wat about the Bermuda Triangle and such.. Besides, my brother had an experience when he was little relating to aliens and I was in it, so because of that I definitely think there must be something not humanlike in this world... and most likely there is such a thing as aliens, 'cuz if there weren't any then y would ppl jsut create something like that and make up stories about it? It'd be a waste of time and pointless, I really don't think ppl would be that stupid.. <.< And the universe is a huge and endless place so why wouldn't there be more life and more things to it than jsut us which are like a tiny ant compare to all the things there must be to it..

Please tell me how I can trust eye witness reports when we have just seen that pilots have a 90% identificaction micsonception rate?

Cheers,
Badeskov

I had my own saucer sighting in 1968.

Pilots are experts at what they see and identify in the skies as evident in the communications where pilots are asked to identify a B-757 from a B-737 and other aircraft in the skies. Ground controllers normally ask pilots to identify and pick out a certain aircraft from a number of other aircraft in the local airspace.

For an example, a pilot must be able to differentiate between a Cessna 172 and a Cessna Skymaster at some distance from his own aircraft, or even an F-16 from an T-38. Not able to do so in a timely manner when requested from ground controllers could spell disaster if the pilot can't find that particular aircraft that ground controller identified as heading directly for his aircraft.

In the case of JAL, flight 1628, ground-based and airborne radars confirmed their sightings and the radar contacts were not indicative of natural phenomena, which is why it remains an unknown case to this very day.

Actually, many ground vehicle have similarities and our allies are known to use the same kind of equipment as the enemy. The French were going against enemy aircaft that were built by their own country.

On the another note, pilots are well-known for their ability to drop 2000 bombs down three-foot shafts on top of a particular building amongst many others spread out in the middle of a large city, and do so from above 20,000 feet at night.

I very sure that Iraqi ground vehicles and aircraft were not the result of plasmas before they were struck.

I think you're taking me a little out of context, Sky. Hunting and hiding from armoured vehicles was my bread and butter for many years. The same principles that apply for differentiating one aircraft, and its varients, from another apply. And the first gulf war, the bulk of the Iraqi vehicles were Soviet derivitives. Not to belittle the skills of a fighter pilot (after all not everyone has the aptitude to be trusted with a vehicle whose dollar value is in the double digit millions) and I'm sure there are other factors to consider (including the apparent lack of combat experience), but-
Link
The A vehicles in question were Scimitar APC's. To the untrained, the Scimitar could be mistaken for a BMP-1 or 2. To me, that's like saying a Volkswagon Beetle looks like a Ford Focus.
Again I want to stress that I'm not belittling the skills of the pilot, but unfortunately these guys aren't immune from human error.

edit:warrior to scimitar. don't know why i was thinking of warriors Probably due to a similar incident from GW1

How can a UFO sighting be terrestrial man made if the sighting was before the time that man knew how to fly?

The earliest known report of a UFO sighting was by Julius Obsequens, a Roman writer, in 100 B.C.. He claimed to have seen "things like ships" in the sky over Italy.

I cannot prove that UFO's are not of this earth, nor can I prove that they are. We lack the technology to investigate them properly as civilians.

hi all, i downloaded an interesting documentary the other day called ancient aliens, again its not proof of any kind but makes the so called evidence in history including the bible accounts very convincing, maybe a little cheesy but a good watch

Human error is anywhere, but despite what he has said, pilots must possess excellent visual skills and when they report saucer-shaped vehicles in close proximity of their aircraft, then it is safe to say that is what they saw.

It was fairly obvious in the investigative reports that the JAL incident had nothing to do with plasmas, nor did any of the UFO case files in question. In many cases, meteorological conditions were checked and found by investigators to not have been a factor at all.

90% indenfication misconception rate? At night or what?
Isn't a bit too high? How are they able to realize the landing plane or other wings out there?
For me this is also the ability to realize things correctly.
Are they allowed to fly if they are predestined for misindentifying things more often?
But understand me correct, I only ask because I am interested, I do not doubt any of your previous arguments.

Hello I believe in the BIBLE as historic Fact and I don t know how you call it a 2000 year old piece of fiction there is more proof that the Bible is real then not also by what knowledge do you quote such statements ??? UFO S and ET S are well explained in the Bible maybe if you read it you would understand everything about ET S and about how they bring in the end of the world and the return of CHRIST -- they have been here since the beginning of mankind and because of our refusal to believe they have been destroying us since and as the Bible says will be our final destruction they control everything from the government to what we watch on TV also our news and are the author of many religions

Hi Metric,

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my explanation. Pilots actually have an incredibly high rate of correct identifications when identifying other aircraft and such. The problem is that their high level of training negatively impacts their abilities to identify something they do not know. The will try to put whatever they see into a known frame of reference by instinct, and thus a pulsing light suddenly becomes a navigation light, something that might have a resemblance to metal is suddenly metallic and so on. It is a testiment to their skills, which unfortunately make pilots rather poor eye witness.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Indeed, they are very good at identifying known objects such as other aircraft and the like. Unknown, no. They will try and map it into their aircraft frame of reference, which thus can lead to an overinterpretation of something otherwise benign. This is why what pilots describe should be taken with a grain of salt.



They might not have been indicative, however, ruling it out we cannot do. It still might have been natural phenomena. But unknown, I can definitely agree with that

Cheers,
Badeskov

First of all, I am sorry if I offended you - that was certainly not my intention. But we deal in beliefs and personal opinions here; you believe in the bible and I respect that. I don't and honestly believe it to be a piece of fiction. A superb piece of fiction at that, but nonetheless a piece of fiction. UFOs and ET in the bible, not in my bible.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I take it badeskov wont take any eyewitness or photographic evidence as proof. Only a captured craft will satisfy his proof, nothing less.

So why debate with him?

The crux of this topic is (with what we have presented to the pubic) are these UFO's extra-terrestrial, natural or man-made... what is the best evidence for Aliens on earth?

(for me, only a captured/landing craft, in front of my face, Aliens popping out would fully satisfy my need of proof of Aliens visiting Earth. I think the idea is novel and I'd love to be witness to aliens visiting earth, but my mind prefers to choose a more logical conclusion before imagination.)

\

Apparently, we don't agree with your assessment, and neither do the air traffic controllers.

A case in point; at any given time, air traffic controllers identify for us, the type and model of aircraft that they want us to confirm in our airspace and we do so on a regular basis with great accuracy.

I KNOW that as a fact from many years of experience, and coming from a family of aviators, some who are still flying for the airlines as captains!

When they report a saucer-shaped vehicle next to their aircraft, then they are not reporing anything that has to do with plasmas.

Something like that would be very nice, yes.



Why not? We are debating what the best evidence is and I am arguing the case that it isn't eye witnesses.



In my honest opinion there isn't really any evidence either way, although there are certainly lots of indications that something is going on. But is it natural, ET or something else, I cannot say and is still open.

Cheers,
Badeskov

(I agree a lot, sorry I wasn't able to "edit" my previous post fast enough, lol)

No, apparently not. But I respect that and we will just politely have to disagree



I have no doubt of that and have never contested their abilities in that respect.

Cheers,
Badeskov

LOL, it happens to me too at times Good post, though!

Cheers,
Badeskov

edited: weird merge of two posts

OK.

Cheers,
Badeskov

hey badeskov do you believe in black holes? Can you provide some evidence of their existence?

I disagree, and do so from my own experience, and those within the aviation community.

If a pilot can't differentiate between a Beech Baron and a Beech Bonanza, then that pilot has no businees flying into congested airports because controllers will sequence aircraft and expect every pilot to identify each aircraft he is told to follow, or to look out for. Otherwise, a serious situation will developed if the controller tells the pilot fo follow the Cherokee and he follows a Cessna instead.

A case can develope where the Cherokee aircraft the pilot was suppose to follow, mates up with his aircraft behind the wings.

"discussions of the UFO issue have remained narrowly polarized between advocates and adversaries of a single theory, namely the extraterrestrial hypothesis ... this fixation on the ETH has narrowed and impoverished the debate, precluding an examination of other possible theories for the phenomenon."-Sturrock, 1999

I know I've posted this before, elsewhere, but this is the core problem with the UFO debate. Unfortunately the UFOlogists in the ETH camp have been exceptionally vocal in declaring all Unidentified Phenomena as alien spacecraft (who knows, maybe they're right), and adversaries of the ETH have been just as vocal in saying it ain't (and again, it's possible they're right as well). This has had the net effect of effectively drowning out any reasonable and moderate research into the phenomena, or it's used by either side of the debate as 'evidence' to support their argument.
SOBEPS has disbanded, and in their News about our Society portion of their webpage, the explanation (to my understanding) is offered that they themselves cannot find any conclusive evidence to support either side. It is also my understanding that they're work will continue through 2 new organisations, each pursuing a different line of thinking of the phenomena. If we're to find our 'proof' then we need to follow their example and start realistically looking outside the ETH-'nuff said.


move now, out.

I think the big question here is, if they are in fact 'military' projects... whats with all the anal probing? If they're really that interested I'd imagine it's easier to visit a local proctologist than create flying saucers to abduct people with.

Or perhaps thats what they want us to think. Why would the military do that?

Yes, I believe in black holes and I do so because:

1) They are valid solutions to physics as we know it, i.e. their existence is theoretically possible.
2) We can repeatedly and independently observe the behavior of what corresponds to our physical description of black holes many places in the universe (examples are vast).
3) The most likely explanation is thus black holes given physics as we currently know it (we don't have any other explanations for what we observe).

ET is only one of many solutions to the unknowns that we currently see and ET consistently denies us the option of independent and repeated observation and measurement. Until we have ruled out all but one solution, we won't really have an answer. And that is why the ET answer requires more tangible evidence than what we currently have. If we knew that something unexplanable would show up every day at a certain place and time we could prod and probe it and come up with evidence.

A much better example is actually the Higgs boson. It is theorized to exist and can explain quite a few unexplained observations in particle physics. Yet we have not been able to show it's existence (although people are working very hard on the matter). Here we have something that we have no evidence for yet, but I believe it to exist. I do not know that it exists and nor can I provide any evidence, but given that the theory behind it is sound and consistent I think it would be a fair bet that we will actually one day have the proof

Cheers,
Badeskov

Another good post hazz.

And yes indeed,nothing has changed. The believers dont need any more evidence as they already "know" that ET exists,and have found us, and found a way to get here. Me,I need better evidence.

Not the Skyeagle kind....REAL evidence.

Well, my evidence is real evidence that has been validated by investigators, some of which were presented just the other day on TV!!

So here is where I have for long periods of time saying; "this is this," and "that is that," and the skeptics say, "We don't believe you," and then comes along a program that validated my statements. Did you seriously think that I was just making all of this up with nothing to back it up?

How did you think that I was able to ascertained the true facts regarding Project Mogul even before other UFOlogist had done so?

You can ascertain those facts by making inquiries under the FOIA in order to obtain the declassified government UFO files that I have used as references.

It is just a matter of time!

Do you have any physical evidence on hand?

7 pages later, about 5 pages taken up by Skyeagle's JAL matra, still no proof. There never will be proof until they, if they really do exist, present themselves to us. Don't hold your breath folks, thats not going to happen either because if they are out there, then showing themselves would have no benifits to themselves. And if they do show themselves, I'd be very VERY worried of their intentions, because you don't just come light years away to give someone a helping hand for nothing.

Goes to show how much you don't know!

Official records on that incident have already been released and look what you posted! Sometimes, skeptics reveal just how much it is, they don't know, by what they post.

Do I have a piece of black hole in my hand? No! Do I need it to prove the existance of black holes as we theorize them to be? No!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Official reports are not proof, and most of your reports are 3rd hand information at best. Then you also are sold on radar hits, which radar is quite helpful in air traffic, it is equivilent to a lie detector. Works great but is not 100% infallible. Meaning you can get false hits on atmospheric or other phenomia. And yes I think pilots are human, meaning that they could easily misidentify or misclassify objects that they see, trying to compare them to what they know. Its not a personal attack bud, I know you take what you believe seriously, from the ammount of research you do, but its not concrete proof.

I was hoping you would write your message the way you did, and I will remember your post the next time a skeptic ask me for physical evidence on UFOs.

Also there is mountains of data evidence showing that black holes do indeed exist. And through indirect means (Watching their effects on nearby stars and distortion of objects behind black holes) they can be seen.

Who said anything about just documents? Besides, those are OFFICIAL government documents backed by data there were also released. Goes to show you are still out of the loop on what is being presented.



Apparently, the radar data has already been authenticated by the govenment and look what you posted.

The more you post, the more it becomes evident you have no idea what is being discussed, but then again, that is typical of "armchair debunkers" who think they know it all, but in all actuality, they don't.