I dont think his evidence "its pretty good" at all. Skyeagle has never shown us one single case for wich there is hard scientific evidence of aliens on Earth. What needs be be shown is that some of the UFOs are alien starships, at the exclusion of ALL OTHER possible explanations. He has not done so.

But Skyeagle is not alone, noone has ever been able to do this. If they were then the date of First Contact would be tought in schools all over the world and academics would be writing scientific papers about them. I dont see that happening.


AND PLEASE PEOPLE....POST A LINK INSTEAD OF THOSE BIG A** PICTURES!!

agreed hazzard is right we need at least the operatiors hand book and 3-5-yr warranty papers of the space ship and a test drive with news crew, that might get a few belivers? Nah! they will say its was done in Hollywood 4 sure.DONTEATUS

Or if the new US president *insert name* came on CNN and told the world that we have proof of ET visitation. Then sent this hard evidence around the world for scientific testing, like they did with the moon rocks.
After there was a clear confermation from the scientific community - REAL DEAL-....

That would do it for me. An I would LOVE IT.

Why would an alien spacecraft be hovering over main street?

Someone spray some munchkin dust on this thread so`s we can read it agin.DONTEATUS

Indeed. Another "cut and paste" job in my honest opinion.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Looks like music venue stobe lights to me!

You can clearly see outlines around the object suggesting a cut and paste job. Most likely it was originally a reflection in a car onto a window or something.

Is it any wonder then, why highly experienced radar controllers with many years on the job, and commercial and military pilots with thousands of hours of flight experience, who have encountered UFOs, have stated for the record that the UFOs/flying saucers they encountered were those of ET?



Actually, the answer you seek, is all around you! Ever wondered why some countries are now coming out that UFOs are real, and are of intelligently controlled crafts? The nature of their performance capabilities excluded aircraft.

Members of a B-52 crew that encountered a UFO over the Minot AFB missile fields, have already stated for the record that the UFO they encountered was that of extraterrestrials. The UFO was also tracked on ground-based radar as well, and the performance of that UFO excluded conventional aircraft.

I find it very interesting that highly experienced pilots with thousands of hours in the air and many years experience, have also excluded aircraft as the answer for their UFO encounters. In many cases, they reported metallic, saucer-shaped flying crafts that eventually zoomed away at hypersonic velocities, which were backed by airborne and ground-based radars.

I dont care who states that the UFOs theyve seen are alien spaceships, based on nothing more then radar and or visual sightings.

To be 100% sure I need more.



AND STOP POSTING THAT %*¤&% PICTURE!!!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...&plindex=50

what you need is what we cant give you. because we havent abducted an alien, or shot down a craft.
besides, whos to say youd believe that anyways? you might think theyre showing you a guy in a suit.

So what you would consider a definitive proof of alien visitation, besides ets showing themselves all around the world and on tv news?

A dead alien body or a piece of a craft can be faked, a picture always has the possibility to be photoshoped.

For me, a live Alien would be very nice, but I obviously find so unlikely that it isn't really worth contemplating. What would constitue really good evidence would be a downed ET craft, where scientists are either given parts of it to investigate, or are invited to go do research on parts of the craft itself. Scientists should be experts within their fields and not a select few. That would yield the evidence that we so desire

Cheers,
Badeskov

First lets have a look at what we are debating here shall we. Interstellar space travel is much more difficult than indicated in movies and television series, such as Star Trek and Star Wars and the like. First, it is not possible to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light - the physics of the universe prevent it. Second, traveling near the speed of light is impractical for biological organisms.

Collisions with particles even the size of a grain of sand would be catastrophic. An even worse problem is that the light from ordinary stars would be blue-shifted all the way to the gamma end of the spectrum when traveling near the speed of light. These gamma rays would destroy all biological life - even if it were in suspended animation, if that were possible.

In essence, these problems would restrict the speed of travel to well below the speed of light. The most optimistic estimate for the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations would put them 2000 light years apart. With no intermediate habitable stopping points, space travel over this distance would be impractical. So, even if we are not alone in this galaxy, it would be highly unlikely that any extraterrestrial civilization could have visited us.

-What if they are 100 000 years ahead of us and they have shields and warpdrive..*insert your favorite scifi babble*!!??

Speculative at best and not even close to any form of REAL evidence.

UFO believers would ask about Roswell, UFO sightings, alien abductions, etc. The problem I have with the whole Roswell government conspiracy thing is that there is not one piece of physical evidence. The government has never been able to keep any kinds of secrets - much less over a period of 40 years. UFO sightings are just that, someone seing something they cant explain. Regarding abductions, none of the people involved have been shown to have any signs of tampering, which would be readily apparent by MRI.

If someone came forth with compelling, bona fide evidence that were being visited, my reaction would be "Yeessss!"

They would bring in the absolute best scientists in the world to study it, depending on what the evidence is like. And I dont doubt that there would be a lot of cooperation from the scientific community.

But sure, a dead alien body or a piece of a alien ship that couldnt possibly be faked would do it. Lets say they found physical evidence after a scraping of the"ship", and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that arent present around our sun or very heavy elements that dont exist in this starsystem. That would not only do it for skeptics like me, but for the scientific community aswell.



Bottom line, most of what is commonly published about UFOs is undeniably nonsense. The rest is unexplained.

Thats it.

In this case you need aliens to cooperate or an accident.

If any of these sightings are real is evident ets dont want to make a public appearance.

And for a crashed alien device of any type, you need to keep military away from the wreckage because this people find necessary to label and keep hidden anything who fall from skies, balloons, satellites... imagine a piece of et. The big problem here, the military are always the first ones to arrive when these things happen.

What´s the third option?

Space travel is impossible for us today, but not according to physics laws, second nowadays theorists. Maybe its impossible to travel from one star to another directly, but the same physics who give us black holes predicate the existence of worm holes, so, its not necessary to travel from one point to another, just jump. And the problem here is control the energy necessary.

But those ets may not be coming from stars, there is a possibility they came from another dimension.

About roswell and government secrets. Politicians are in fact the worst people to put faith on, they lie all the time and cant keep their mouth shut. But when speaking about military, they know how to keep the monsters inside the wardrobe, when did you see a picture of the Stealth Fighter? The F117 was developed and tested for years and the public only saw it and had a proof of their existence when the military allowed. Today there is some speculation about the TR-3B, certainly they have some projects for new crafts but how much we know if its real or not?

There is no way to tell if any of these sightings in the sky are alien crafts, and the probability is really tiny, but some people report strange things happening, who knows?

Yes, which is very unlikely



Or doesn't really care, but just happens not to do so.



While the military has that reputation, we don't really know for sure. But if the military got their hands on a downed craft, what were they going to do with it? Taking something so advanced apart and reverse engineering the technology behind it is way past a couple of dozen researchers locked inside a military research facility (assuming that they have more than a piece of metal the size of a dinner plate). The foremost researchers in a large number of fields would be required to obtain results in any meaningful amount of time. These researchers would most likely have to draw on a lot of their research assistants, as research nowadays is so specialized that one cannot just have a research assistant with some peripheral knowledge and experience appointed. Thus, we are talking parts of research groups and then the field has suddenly widened significantly. Then comes the equipment required. For many such fields the equipment is custom, hand built by the researchers themselves and not something one moves, as recalibration could easily take a very long time (I know of one such contraption where it took almost 5 years to be back up running after moving it, but that was also a rather large, complicated bugger).

And, while compelling, there is no comparison whatsoever to present or former top classified military projects. The difference in scope, size and significance are orders of magnitude. Take for instance the Manhattan project, how could they keep that under wraps? First of all, actually, they couldn't. Jane/Joe public were kept in the dark, but the Soviets were well entrenched and knew most of what was going on. Secondly, it was "limited" in scope and time. And, last but not least, it was not as much ground breaking research as it was an engineering task based on what had already been described in theory. Make no mistake, though, I greatly respect the work that was performed.

Same with the F-117. Of course there was research in materials and other parts, however, most was engineering based on known data at the time. And it was limited in the sense that in *mumble* number of years they were to present a prototype for test flights. Sure, the stealth fighter had a significant impact on warfare, but it was not a revolutionary impact.



ET lands on my yards, comes in for a beer and a chat. Then I would know, however, how the h... would I ever be able to convince anybody else?! So that option I'd rather not have exercised

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Before we say that FTL is impossible we should examine warped space/time and FTL possibilities.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive


A solution to the Alcubierre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnikov_Tube


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory (closest and most realistic hyper-space-ish FTL idea)


(My Idea) And frame dragging can create seemingly FTL speeds from an observers frame. (If done on a X-axis, it creates no timelike curves, but will when in circular motion (tippler cylinder) This maybe possible by using the dark matter spread through space/time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect (another test FTL phenomemnon)


Wormholes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormholes


I propose the idea of destroying space/time in front of you, essentially creating a wormhole with much less energy needed and is much safer and creates no time machine like capabilities. This idea just means to travel interstellar, you may, at most, travel for a few solar system distances, a couple of AU`s.


It may be possible to use superstring theory to create FTL using Branes.
http://members.tripod.com/da_theoretical1/horizons.html


I have also heard of an idea of entering a higher spatial dimension to to be carried to other types of space that matter can exist in but not take part in (at least from the matter's prospective) (For a similar idea see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_%28physics%29 a 2D object existing in 3d space, a string). I cannot remember from ware I heard the theory from though.


The major problem with all these, they need lots of power to get started. But for the Alcubierre drive, it takes a hole hell of allot of power at anytime, but the kranikov just needs allot to lay out the negative energy and to build up speed, a kranikov "layer-izer" might be attached to a Daedalus probe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus )

I theorize that near-light travel maybe as difficult if not more than FTL.
Any of these ideas are probably in the range of a type II civilization or type III.
Until then if you want to go to another star system I suggest a trip on a Daedalus craft http://images.google.com/images?client=fir...sa=N&tab=wi .

What are you talking about!? Space travel is not impossible for us. We have done it for about 40 years.




No it is not. We are doing that right now aswell, with our Voyagr spaceships.



Yes , and they may also be comming from another galaxy, another universe, another time, from inside the earth.....Or why not from Hollywood.

They always came from hollywood. I dont consider sending a satellite to space or a rocket to moon or mars the same as space travel. We are stuck in this planet and our space crafts really are only rockets full of gasoline. We set the target and shoot a missile with 3 or 6 monkeys inside...

Holy crap. Now you're debunking our space travel?

You can't buy this kind of comedy.

If you someday have the same sighting some pilots reported, while flying at high altitude you see a huge saucer (or cigar shaped) craft, maneuvering around the plane defying all laws of physics, you see its looks resemble a metallic object and has windows on it, who you think made that thing, humans or aliens? Would this change your view about events such as roswell?


Man i would love to see you in the same position of skyeagle, trying to convince the world of a such phenomenon with no solid evidence whatsoever.



But i think if ets visitation was/are real, such event will be so strange to human experience that roswell, abductions, hybrid babys, horny sexy blond aliens, need to be take seriously as a real possibility.

Sure i can make comedy of this, if you consider the Space Shuttle a real spacecraft, then i suggest we start colonizing mars with our advanced technology, lets put some seeds, water, bananas and a few chimpanzees inside that rocket and send them to mars. And watch the red planet grow in life in a few thousands of years.

As far as US Gov't, forget it. However, several Eastern Block European countries are entirely different in their views.
Bulgaria, most significant, Poland, and Czechoslovakia have guidelines for proper reporting to gov't officials. They are quite embossed in the theology of alien visitation.

Their militaries are actually trained for conflict. As it is, a lot of there bases get 'buzzed' supposedly. Could be a case of experimental craft and hype, who knows.

The only one that jumps to mind that did find irrefutable proof according to him, was a gentleman from Great Britain. Who hacked several computer systems of NATO.
Several TB's of data. However, his extradition to the US for punishment went without a hitch, and nothing else has been heard since. Rumor has it you can purchase some of the packets of info., but it may be more costly than the money you put into it.

Only other thing I can think of is the occasional leak of datums about alien-base DNA structures that scientists encounter in the Civilian sector of the Armed Forces that study agents, mostly exotic disease. At one point, there was a group of specialists involved in the containment of a certain organic form, and they tried to sell the information. Nothing else has been noted of this, and the labs no longer exist. Course of matter, though, most are content with explaining silly, little pictures of the mundane/impossible. Does 'em just so...

First of all, none of the hypothesized crafts would be defying the laws of physics; they would do things we could by no means do, however, within the realms of the laws of physics.

But seriously, I do not know. I can sit here and hypothesize on what I would do, but the truth is that I most likely would have no idea. It would nonethless have to be rather convincing, as for me not thinking that it was some kind of electro-magnetic interference stimulated hallucinations or similar. I can't say what would really convince, and I guess I would only know if I see such.



Well, I honestly think I would approach it from a somewhat different angle. Instead of trying to convince the world that I had seen something odd that I would ascribe to ET I would rather dig into the physics behind it and attack it from that angle.



It would most certainly get a second look and then I guess the conclusions would talk for themselves either way.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Evidence that is endlessly cited is "expert testimony."

Pilots, astronauts, and others with experienced eyes and impressive credentials have all claimed to see odd craft in the skies. It might besafe to say that these witnesses have seen something odd. But just because you dont recognize an aerial phenomenon doesnt mean that its an extraterrestrial visitor.

That requires additional evidence



You are right about the "no solid evidence whatsoever" part. And yes, Skyeagle has been doing this for years, and who knows, one day, he, or someone else, might just hit the "jackpot". Astronomers and other scientists are well aware of many instances in which something that was very radical turned out to be true.

It happens over and over again in science, thats the way science makes the big steps. So I dont think they would all be scared off by the fact that its considered radical or non-mainstream.

Continental drift was not very popular at the beginning, but it gained adherents rather quickly. As soon as you have a trickle of hard evidence, that trickle turns into a torrent, and then what was radical yesterday is today mainstream.

I dont see that happening with the UFO phenomenon.

With all the advanced resources that SETI and other similar organizations are now applying to the search, perhaps the undisputed hard scientific proof will materialise one day. Hopefully in our lifetimes!

That would be so cool...! http://www.seti.org/

But Im not holding my breath.


Maybe one day, in the future, my 2 year old son is watching the news, and there it is .... - My dad would have loved this!

And, that is where the data and other evidence comes in, which aupported the specifics of their testimony in regards to their encounters.

Oh...OK.



Gasoline would be a really bad fuel. If we ever used gasoline, we would indeed still be trying to fly into space...
That's why we've used Hydrogen and oxygen and hypergolics...

Lord knows, I wish the hundreds of pages of detailed technical instruction in the launch countdown plan for a typical Shuttle flight, or an Apollo-Saturn launch could have been reduced to:

1) Set the target.
2) Load the monkees.
3) Clear the area.
4) Push the GO button.
5) Hope it works.

And I have a strange feeling that the three highly trained men who climbed aboard the Apollo spacecraft, or any of the typically seven even more highly trained men and women that man our Shuttles would'nt necessarily appreciate being called monkeys...





Well, I must say you certainly can make a comedy of this!

The short-sightedness and complete lack of knowledge inherent in the creation of such a comment would generally be perceived as distressingly sad...if it wasn't so funny!




I am certain, based upon your staements and syntax, that you possess an advanced engineering degree (no doubt aerospace).

I have obviously been completely in error for decades, and would like to finally know what the Shuttle is.
I mean, I had this obviously skewed impression that it was a really magnificent piece of flying machine, and the most complex spacecraft ever built.

I also thought that it was manned by exceedingly qualified people, genrally including a majority of Master's and Doctoral degrees in various sciences, who spend almost two years of their lives in training for a single mission.

I am rather perplexed to discover that they are really just monkees stuffed into a missile that runs on gasoline!

How could I have been horn-swaggled like this for what...some 40 years or so?!

Maybe the hard scientific proof has been 'found'....but the general public are not allowed
'in on it'.......

I'm taking ETs and UFOs a lot more seriously after watching the Disclosure Project video.
This can be found in the video section of UM....posted by Saruman recently.

I've also just watched the first two of the 2006 interviews with Dan Burisch....very interesting...
to put it mildly. These can be found on YouTube....search for Dan Burisch interviews.

I have seen your "data and other evidence" Sky! It sure has convinced you and other people that is willing to take that famous leap of faith.

You know what Im saying when Im asking for REAL scientific evidence...Right!?


Oh, thats right, how was Texas?

But, their sightings of saucer-shaped craft were supported by radar and other data, which confirmed that there was an object maneuvering around their aircraft, and the data also proved beyond any doubt that the UFO was not a conventional aircraft of any kind, secret or otherwise, since the performance levels were impossible for any aircraft to achieve.

So what we have, are multiple levels of data and credible witnesses accounts corroborating one another of flying objects for which are so technologically advanced, that we have yet to incorporate the powerplants into our own aircraft.

There was a primary reason why I posted references from the 2007 Aeronautical and FAA regulations (AIM/FAR), and that in regards that we have yet to achieve the technological advances that are clearly demonstrated by UFOs, but the Defense Department and NASA have been actively working to achieve the breakthroughs in regards to those advances I noted in the references.

In other words, mankind is not there yet, but the owners of those UFOs have clearly demonstrated there are no contraints in regards to the problems we are trying to solve. That is why the radar experts and highly-trained pilots have stated for the record that the UFOs they encountered were no ours, and the data recorded, backs their claims.



Windy, but nice, and I am heading back there on Sunday. Last week, a pilot from Arizona confirmed to me that the UFO in regards to the "Phoenix Lights" had nothing to do with flares.

Means NOTHING as far as evidence of alien starships buzzing our airspace goes.





I have never been to Texas. I have been over every meter of US coastline though. Its beautiful.

Have a good vacation Sky. See you when you get back.

It does, because the saucers were not only confirmed visually by highly credible and experienced observers, but the specifics of the performance capabilities confirmed that the advanced technology, which was demonstrated, was not ours.



Actually, it's bit more than a vacation, which is why I am heading back on Sunday.

Why is it always assumed that if an alien race came here that they have near light or FTL? What if the aliens come here via generation ship, they cannot leave, if they came all super advanced like, then why bother with us? Why not leave and leave a do not disturb sign if they are so mighty?

Sounds like Burisch is pretty unreliable and probably completly bogus:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/burischdirtbag.html

I know it all makes perfect sense, to you...



Dont you ever wonder, if this is such a "no brainer" how come this FIRST CONTACT isnt tought in schools all over the world?

So how do we get 'obviously advanced technology' out of Unidentified/Unexplained Aerial Phenomena (IMO, a more appropriate term than UFO)?
It seems that the application of the term Flying Object sets an automatic research bias to proof of ET's Spaceship (and even then I have to wonder how we come to the conclusion that a glow/light or jellyfish looking UFO is "obviously technology"...).

I know i have a really bad english, need a dictionary all the time.

Space shuttle is the translation i got from babylon for "ônibus espacial", oxygen and hydrogen are still gasoline, very bad idea for traveling in space with this type of fuel.

It was not my intention to call astronauts monkeys, just that we are monkeys.

And what nasa does to put someone on the moon or launch a probe in mars, or space? 1) set the target 2) load the monkeys 3) clear the area 4) push the go button 5) hope it works. All time the same thing, and there is no option to make a pause in the mission and then continue, or the monkeys go directly to the target or they are dead.


The funny thing here, they really hope it works, when they push the button and that marvelous piece of engineering dont explode killing all occupants, those high degree scientists get so excited and start to jump and scream like chimpanzees on a zoo when they get some bananas...

Sometimes ufos are not cited as lights in sky, but huge bizarre machines.

And if is not a plane or a helicopter the only assumption acceptable is a weather balloon or a fancy kite

By what definition do we define them as machines? From all accounts, they look nothing like any machine ever built by humans, so how do we know for certain the object is a machine?
For all we know (thinking of Moya from Farscape or the Cylon flyers from the new Battlestar Galatica, without the cybernetics and genetic engineering), and making that fantastic leap of logic that there can be absolutely no other explanation for UAP, they might be biological entities of unknown origin.
There's really nothing that actually proves that UAP are alien machines...

It is perfectly logical.

First of all, did we have saucer-shaped crafts, in some cases, described by military and commecial pilots, as large as ships, and confirmed via radar analysis of the radar target? It is obvious what the answer is. Did we have the technology to deal with sonic booms? Once again, the answer is no, but apparently, the UFOs in question have shown beyond any doubt that the operators of those vehicles have solved the problem of the sonic boom.

It is all a matter of calling upon the 'process-of-elimination' to make a determination that the UFOs in question are obviously not ours, and why commericial and military aircrews have said that the UFOs they encountered were not ours, and that in concurrence with radar experts who have in some cases, were involved in tracking the UFOs the aircrews encountered, which recorded the movements of the UFOs are they maneuvered around the aircraft. In addition, meteorologist have also confirmed that meteorological conditions during the time of the incidents were not responsible for those UFOs.

Why then, are there skeptics who are not familiar with the kind of technology I am speaking of, say that the experts who have dealt with such technology for many years experience, don't know what they are talking about?! I would place my bet on those who have such experience over those who have no idea of what the technology in question even involves.



Why would it since there is an official government cover-up in progress to this very day, which was also revealed by a U. S. congressman?! In doing so, the government would be shooting itself in the foot

Easy!

Highly experienced aircrews report a metallic saucer-shaped craft flying in proximity of their aircraft in positive and other controlled airspace that would place the UFOs in violation of FAA regulations, which is also confirmed via radar. The UFOs then proceed to zoom off in a climb at hypersonic velocity, which once again, is confirmed by radar.

Were they ours?



The specifics of the performance characteristics is what sets the UFOs in question, apart from conventional aircraft, and in many cases, there were involvement of hypersonic flying saucers, which becomes evident as to why the "ET" trademark has been placed upon many UFO encounters, especially those of the 1940's and 1950's when mankind had yet to achieve hypersonic flight in aircraft.

And we know it is a machine because... I can think of a few examples of fauna where colouration could be described as metallic and texture as smooth (eg fish-and, if you want to take this out of context as a point of ridicule, fish have rained from the sky- , beetles, birds). How do we know that, if extra-terrestrial life form is absolutely and positively the only explanation for that 2% of genuinely UAP, that a biological lifeform couldn't evolve those characteristics? And where does the Petrosavodsk UFO fit into into this? Maybe we should discount it because none of the hundreds of eyewitnesses were identified as experienced pilots and there was no radar report...


So hypersonic flight is the only 'proof' that UAP/UFO= ET's spaceship?
You've only answered my questions with the same points I was questioning in the first place.
The conclusion I've come to is that the evidence of a machine is a human being (somewhere in the chain of events) looking at the 'data' and trying to provide an explanation to the unexplained, decides machine it must be and skews his research accordingly.

Taking into consideration in addition to the basic descriptions, the aircrews also reported portholes and rotating beacon lights on the domed saucer-shaped objects, which were maneuvering around their aircraft at the time. In other words, the aircrews were describing machines, not anything to do with atmospheric phenomena.



No, but when taken into consideration of the descriptions in regards to the objects, then it is clear that the saucer-shaped crafts were not anything else but artificial flying objects as a truck you passed on the highway is considered an artificial object and nothing to do with atmospheric phenomena based on the basic descriptions.



Obviously, that encounter nor the the following encounter had nothing to do with natural phenomena, and I might add that a pilot of an F-117 stealth fighter also confirmed the UFO in the American West encounter.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm

There are a number of ways that an object can be determined as a machine and nothing to do with atmospheric phenomena, and I provided an example above.

Aircrews reported encountering machines, not natural phenomena, and the nature of the radar contacts backs their encounters as artificial intelligently-controlled machines, and that in addition to meteorologist who have also backed the aircrews and radar experts that the objects they encountered had nothing to do with natural phenomena.

Here is another example from an actual encounter.



The folks who are saying the experts are wrong are skeptics who have no concept on the nature of the basic technology involved, much less any knowledge on natural atmospheric phenomena.

Battlestar galactica is a science fiction movie dude. I never watched it so dont know what cylon flyers are, but i prefer the 2001 monolith as et reference for an advanced civilization machinery.


Here is a good example of a sighting, a saucer craft with little people inside Father William Gill