How can we know there is little people inside those saucer crafts?

Abduction Caught On Tape

Kid Abducted

I don't even know what it means to say you derived the term "Space Shuttle" from some translation...and I'm not at all sure I can effectively address the concept that liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are gasoline...as they have no resemblance to gasoline, and I should think any high school student knows this without having to be all too good at science.




Oh, so this is a philosophical statement...I see.




Actually, no...
They specifically plan a complex trajectory / time matrix which will allow precise movement through space and arrival at whatever destination it might be.

The monkees are trained in specifics for a year to two years in every aspect pertaining the their vehicle, their procedures, and their mission plans. Every minute of every day of every mission is planned out and trained for intensely.


Even "loading the monkees" is a process that is planned to the minute, rehearsed in-depth, and executed over a period of approximately 3 hours.


There is no "go button". A countdown is a highly detailed technical procedure that takes days of 24/7 work. It ultimately leads to a launch which is controlled automatically by highly sophisticated computers which accomplish a precise liftoff at an exact millisecond.

Hoping it works is not in the lexicon of the people who do this for a living. Complete confidence in their procedures, their systems, and their hardware is...

And, after months of prepping a vehicle for launch (day and night), and an intense, complex countdown and sucessful liftoff...if the scientists and engineers who made it happen clap, smile, and congratulate each other on doing the amazing so well yet again...that seems perfectly resonable.

You'd just have to be there, and you'd realize that it's alot more satisfying than getting a banana...

Its just a rocket full of gasoline.

Eh, no. Gasoline is a complex hydro-carbon based fuel and would not have the energy to get a rocket off the ground. Hydrogen has, which is the fuel used - the oxygen is the oxidizer. Hydrogen has a much higher energy density than gasoline...they are vastly different and cannot be compared in this respect.

Cheers,
Badeskov

No matter how much technology you put on it , still a rocket using gasoline... See how dangerous is Link

It has nothing to do with gasoline, period. It was hydrogen, which for the same amount is vastly more dangerous compared to gasoline. Gasoline is dangerous, hydrogen even more so and space travel is a dangerous business - but the danger is thoroughly assessed and the risks managed to the best extent possible.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Actually it's 2 television series (as well as 1 movie, a two part miniseries and about 9 webisodes). The first one was made in 1978 (cheesey attempt to cash in on Star Wars) and it's movie was made in 1980 (Galactica 1980- an effort to ressurect the series). The second tv series was made in 2004 and premiered as a 2 part miniseries (the webisodes, Battlestar Galactica: Resistance, came in between series 2&3 as a sort of filler to tie in some of the events between the two series.
Anyhow in the 2004 series the humans capture a Cylon attack craft (pretty much your generic formula, single seater 'jet fighter' capable of operating in space and planetary atmosphere), and upon investigation the craft is found to be a genetically engineered cybernetic organism (outside is all smooth and metallic, inside is organic).


And in Farscape the vessel, Moya, which the protagonists travel around in is also cybernetic organism.
So that leads quite neatly to the next question-
Why is it that the presenting the possibilities presented in Science Fiction are to be discounted and ridiculed by those who wish to believe that there can be no other explanation for Unexplained Aerial Sightings? (since 'phenomena' seems to have some kind of NLP effect on believers that gets them thinking that the theory presented is based on a 'debunkable' terrestrial explanation). Interesting how the shape of ET and his spaceship seems to change in relation to fiction and better SFX

So again, by human terms of reference it is a 'purpose built machine' despite lack of any evidence that effectively rules out any other explanation of what it could be (including massive leviathon EBEs that have somehow made space travel their 'habitat').



Where's the proof that the only possible explanation is that this sighting is a 'purpose built machine'?
Here on earth, molds and bacteria are amongst some examples where smaller elements can be absorbed into a larger mass.
What proof do we have that this doesn't occur on a larger scale elsewhere in the universe (if there can be no other explanation)?



And, like this case, no satisfactory explanation- Unidentified Light- Wewak Area Link
(and if you haven't heard of Wewak or Maralinga, I suggest you do your homework. You'll find it fits a certain pattern...)



But the only technology we have is our own and from that, on the basis of "it doesn't confirm to the specifications of our own technology" the UFOlogist makes the assumption that this is ET technology. So again we have the plausibility of a theory being entirely subject to the individual's willigness to believe.

It burns just like gasoline.

And NASA is just an agency to divert money from government to finance secret groups who have made a deal with reptilians to take control of the world and enslave the human race. The truth is: all researches from nasa are lies, the space bus never worked out of the earth orbit and the moon landing was a hoax link simply because the moon doesnt exist link.

That is most certainly does not! Hydrogen is vastly more explosive compared to gasoline. You'd never be able to get enough thrust for a rocket to leave the ground using gasoline.

The rest no comments

Cheers,
Badeskov

Can we safely say that there is a lack of evidence that automobiles on Interstate 80 are machines?

Obviously, when aircrews report that the UFO they encountered was a flying machine rather than the result of natural phenomena, then they know what they are talking about, especially when meteorologist and the nature of the radar contacts back their report that the UFO was an intelligently-controlled machine.

In that regard, planting doubts is no more viable than trying to say that there is a lack of evidence that automobiles are actually machines.



How many clouds do you see with rotating beacons and portholes that maneuver around aircraft and then zoom off at hypersonic speeds? In fact, do the so-called 'earth lights' have rotating beacons and portholes, and do they maneuver around aircraft of periods as long as an hour?

If the answer is no to any of those questions, then you have the answer. which is; the UFOs in question were not the result of any natural phenomen.



How many bacteria do you know that are the size of ships, saucer-shaped and metallic, that maneuver around aircraft and then zoom off at hypersonic speeds? Obviously, the UFOs were not the result of some unknown natural phenomena any more than my neighbor's Chevy is the result of some unknown natural phenomena.



Of course it is ET technology, and that is why radar experts and experienced flight crews concur, and that in regards to their own encounters.



I will remember that the next time I see an automobile on the road, and revert back to your post that the auto could be the result of some unknown natural phenomena

Actually, I DID my homework, and why I posted the link to that case. Since then, NORAD has finally confirmed that it tracked that UFO, which didn't fit any description of some unknown bacteria.

That is why the description of the UFO fitted that of a machine rather than bacteria. Once again, I want to present what you think, could be the result of bacteria violating the airspace surrounding Bariloche, Argentina.





Perhaps, the airliner was carrying biologist at that time who were sent to Bariloche to study bacteria that take on the form of saucer-shaped flying crafts, which then zoom off at a high-rate of speed after maneuvering around aircraft.

So what you are implying is, these objects could be molds and bacteria rather than machines. Note how the larger bacteria is trying to absorb the smaller bacteria.

So you are aware of what would be significant (to you) about the Light at Wewak? Sounds to me like you haven't done your homework since you referred to the case you posted
Or is that UAS are only relevent if they are sighted in America, England and Belgium?
Given that the RAAF made their UAS reports publicly available back in 1979, I'm surprised that US based UFO sites have completely ignored them (guess it doesn't fit the whole TPTB don't want you to know theory. IMO, it's more to do with laziness in research. Why fill out a request when you can grab it online..).

And speaking of LOLz-
Why do you keep trying to provide a terrestrial explanation to debunk my perfectly good EBE theory?

Is you don't get the context of "assuming that there can be no other explanation [other than true UAS must be visitors from outer space]"?
Or is it that you can't accept the possibility of anything but a mechanical construct, despite years of ridiculing skeptics for their presumption to know all there is to know about the universe?

In your own words, Sky, you've stated on a few occassions that you keep an open mind on the mysteries of the universe, so what's so wrong with space dewelling creatures ?

As of this point in time we have not encountered any intelligent life outside our own planet, so how can we know what form it will take. IMO, dead humanoid ETs still sitting in their seats sounds very much like the kind of phantasmagoria that a human mind would create.
Much in the same way a human associates planes and trucks with highspeed transportation of occupants and cargo, and from there percieves those same attributes to something unexplained based on words like, mettalic, smooth, acceleration, radar signature.
Please, then debunk for me the following 'Jellyfish'-
Shanghai Link
Bolivia Link
Australia Link
Petrosavodsk, USSR Link

My goodness, stupidity doesn't discriminate does it?

So what evidence do you have that this is an ET piloted craft?

Years of brow beating and 'bible' bashing the unbelievers, picking apart their arguments because they fail to understand that this is alien visitations and they can't compare it to terrestrial explanations (because it's alien) and the best you can do is present terrestrial explanations to viable EBE theories (which have as much 'evidence' as your own... )?

edit:typo

I do my homework and know when something isn't pertinent to the issues at hand when pushed by a debunker. In other words, irrelevant!



The question should be; why do some skeptics try to push a terrestrial explanation for UFO encounters that have no terrestrial explanation according to the laws of physics?

At that point, all the armchair debunkers can do, is to rewrite the laws of physics.



Did mankind have saucer-shaped crafts capable of hypersonic flight in 1952? If not, then the question has been answered! In that case, is it any wonder that experts have stated that the UFO encounters in question, had no terrestrial explanation and instead, stated as a B-52 crew had said in regards to their encounter, that the UFO was that of ET?

Then comes along, a skeptic who has no idea about the nature of aerodynamics nor radar technology and tells the B-52 aircrew with many years of flight experience that they were mistakened.

You see, there are those here who were not born yesterday.



Let me make a distinction between open-minded skeptics and close-minded skeptics. The closed-minded skeptics set themselves up for ridicule, and I can provide some very clear examples, including my own setup when I presented the discovery of the gorilla. The closed-minded skeptics took the bait and the rest is history. In the JAL flight incident, the closed-minded skeptics set themselves up in the international press and make a mockery of themselves when the facts were later revealed.

Open-minded skeptics would not have allowed themselves to be placed in such a reckless position. Debunkers, Phil Klass and Donald Menzel, and others, are examples where they were so anxious to debunk UFOs, they failed to check the facts before going public, and eventually, the facts were later revealed, and as a result, they spent the rest of the day wiping the 'mud of ridicule' off of their faces within the international arena.



Nothing is wrong. ET has already demonstrated their advanced technology for many of us, as evident in the number of declassified UFO documents that have been released under the FOIA by the U. S. government. Now, other countries around the globe are revealing that the 'UFOs in question,' are intelligently-controlled crafts and the characteristics of their performance capabilities have excluded our own aircraft.

You said it, I didn't! Just using your own logic, you understand!

Your statement reminded me of those who'd stated decades ago, that there were no evidence of other planets outside our own solar system.



Your statement there, sounds very familiar of those who'd stated in the early 1800's, that the "Manbeast of Africa" is a myth. That "Manbeast of Africa" is known today as the gorilla.



Since aircrews described flying machines with metallic and other identifiable features that clearly were not of natural origin, why paint the object as a result of natural phenomena when "Mr. Reality" says otherwise?



Why?

Enlighten me then. There's something about Wewak, that should stick out like the provebial dog's b******s (and no, its not the balloons either). I'll take an educated guess that you didn't bother to read what my link led to, nor do 5 minutes of google searching to find out about the place...



But it's you who, over the last few posts, that's been debunking with terrestrial explanations. I don't know how I could make it any clearer that my hypothesis was based on an extraterrestrial biological entity.
And all you've been providing is trucks, planes, beacons, portholes and hypersonic flight.
As I stated earlier, we don't know what form advanced lifeforms will take.



And how often do we see the UFO researcher (with the same credentials as those despicable armchair skeptics) come along and tell those same experienced crewmen that what they actually saw was ET's spaceship?
At least the skeptics don't use those crewmans' stories to line their own pockets...
Indeed how easily does the con artist forget that some of us weren't born yesterday




And given your debunking reaction toward the thought of an organic extraterrestrial lifeform fitting into the UAS catagory, your failure to pick up on Wewak and your total avoidence of the 'Jellyfish', it's safe to say that your name will be joining that list



Save yourself now. It's ok to admit that you're not comfortable with the thought of an EBE that possesses the characteristics you feel identify the UFO as an 'intelligently controlled craft'.

I think you have already been enlightened, but don't want to tell anyone!

No it's not that I don't want to tell anyone, it's just me seeing if you've returned the courtesy of reading a link I've posted (since I have taken the time to read through yours)
Your last few posts have left me wondering, is all...

I see that you STILL haven't caught on. I have been using your own logic!



I am referring only to the crafts themselves, which have been described in many cases, as saucer-shaped. Even scientist have described them as well. Just a few of many examples of UFO reports made by scientist that many people were unaware of.



So you see, commercial and military aircrews are not the only folks reporting such flying objects.

I am very sure that commercial and military aircrews don't line their own pockets in regards to their own UFO sightings.

There have been instances where they have lost their jobs for reporting their UFO encounters. Money is not an issue here, but the closed-minded armchair debunkers tend to bring of the issues of fame and money in order to discredit the UFO enigma.

In most instances, aircrews do not report their encounters despite that there are thousands of such reports on record. In other words, such cases are numbered in the tens of thousands and there are well over 100,000 UFO reports on record.

I don't think so, and I think there is more that you are hiding from us!

Haha. Good one. But I'm afraid you've failed miserably, and the only logic you've used is your own. Otherwise you'd be looking at the hypothetical from the perspective of "if all other terrestrial and atmospheric explanations can be discounted, and the only positive explanation that is left is that they are extraterrestrial in origin, then what other extraterrestrial explanations exist apart from spaceships, celestial bodies and meteorites.



So am I.

In your haste to dish out servings of humble pie and cold cups of STFU, you demonstrated that your nowhere near as open minded as you think you are and that will debunk any theory that isn't the same as, or able to support, yours.
Either this is the way you've always been, or in your zeal to slay those 'monsters' you've become like them yourself.
You're as guilty as Printy, Klass, Pflock, Greer and Friedman of being overly anxious to debunk any theory that doesn't sit with your own...

I dont think I have ever seen so much nonsense in a single post.Scary that some people believe in this, and much more.

I am more interested in the radar/visual cases on record.



From what??? An armchair UFO debunker?!



Doesn't faze me in the least because it doesn't reflect reality. As I've said before, you would have to rewrite the laws of physics to make the UFOs what you want them to be.

Take another look at the photo I provided and figure out my angle, and remember, I am using your own logic.

Go on then, reveal me. It's the only victory you'll get tonight since it's way past bedtime for me.

And in response to your out of context quote about pilots not lining their pockets with their stories, you're dead right. It's the UFO researchers who do that. If this was the music biz RIA would be all over them with lawsuits for stealing royalties from the use of those witnesses' stories.

Celestrial bodies and meteors have already been discounted when the facts were later examined, as was the case in the JAL incident of 1986 when debunkers tried to paint the UFOs as planets, not knowing that the UFOs was not in the same part of the sky as the planets and the fact the UFOs were tracked on radar.

Meteors were also discounted in other UFO incidents because meteors don't maneuver around aircraft for long periods of time and then zoom in a climb at hypersonic speeds afterwards. In addition, meteors were not the kind of saucer-shaped vehicles that aircrews had described.



I am more open-minded than you think!!

I have discounted many UFO reports based on the evidence and even disagreed with other UFOlogist as well, including Stanton Friedman on the MJ-12 documents and the European UFOlogist that the Belgian UFO was an F-117 or another secrett aircraft. The evidence didn't fit their claims, and once again, why I posted references to support my case from the 2007 AIM/FAR manual.

So yes, I do my homework!



On another note, I was asserting that there were no Project Mogul balloon flight in regards to the Roswell incident when other UFOlogist and skeptics were still thinking there were such a flight.

Now, other UFOlogist have begun to jump on my bandwagon after discovering that no such flight ever occurred after all.

It is more effective if you do so, if you dare!!



What victory?! I am just bringing reality out into the open!

It is your bedtime and now, it's time for me to prepare for my flight back to Texas.

Bady,

I think it's probably pointless to engage this one anymore.

If the difference between LH2/LOX rocket fuel oxidizer and gasoline ( ) will not be acknowledged, I think we know where the poster stands....

Yep...that's pretty much confirmation....

Ohhh...

Haz, I would agree; however, this time I think anarchy is pulling our leg - or I woud hope so. If not, I think I will have 2 of what he is having, seems to work pretty well (as long as it doesn't sport any long time effects )

Cheers,
Badeskov

I think you might be right, Bady.

I'll hold off on having what he's having. I'd rather see if his posts are in fact the result of its long-term effects!!!

Good point, lets wait and see what happens and if it indeed has some detrimental long term effects I would prefer to keep my sanity!!!

Cheers,
Badeskov

I hope your right B. But its hard to say sometimes...You do remember limited? The guy that promised us, among other things, 200 billion(!) alien ships comming to Earth before christmas of -07.

And Skyeagle. Lets say that you are wrong about them being here...

Whats your view on this.... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t=0&start=0

How could I ever forget limited and the 200 trillion (not billion, that would be easy) alien ships Now, that was something!!!

Cheers,
Badeskov

What happened to him?

Good question...maybe the gravity aring from the assembly of 200 trillion ships swallowed him?

Cheers,
Badeskov

This is why they come they look ,they leave Just DONTEATUS

Or is what i'm not having...

I'll send two of these by your email

That might be true, if the aliens only crashed in the US.

And funny how you use that cover-up excuse only when it seves your purpose. You keep showing us military and government documents as evidence of ET on Earth...

Wish you would make up your mind.

And isn't funny how this earthshattering revelation comes in the form of a congressman who filed one FOI request at a time when the US military was actually investigating UAS?

In Goldwater's own words "[the] request was understandibly denied".

But of course the reply to this is always the conclusive proof is the hostile outburst from his friend, a high ranking Air Force Officer, in response to Goldwater's frequent harrasment of the man to give him the answer he wanted to hear.
Sounds a lot like the saga that plays out on this board where one individual keeps presenting the same tired old argument to get thos who don't agree with the absoluteness of his ETV hypothesis, then accuses those members of the board who express their displeasure at such behaviour as truth/reality deniers...

Interesting how, over my last few posts, it was demonstrated that any type of UAS that cant be presented as ET's purpose built high speed flying machine is discounted and ignored to force the desired result.
So who really the true armchair UFO debunker in this debate?

classic...LMAO

I've read just about all 57 pages of this thread, so I have a gist of who's who and their stances.

Just one question, in particular for Sky Eagle, but I'll happily throw it open to anyone who can give a credible answer.

You claim in this thread that ETs have been visiting us for hundreds of years. Would it not make sense that "they" would leave incontrovertible evidence of their being here? By "incontrovertible evidence", I don't mean the testimony of radar operators and pilots you favor. I mean artifacts--think of the portion of the LEM we left on the moon, Spirit and Rover vehicles on Mars, the Soviet Union's Venera probes on Venus.

It makes sense to me that ET would not be able to hide their existance from us for hundreds (thousands?) of years without leaving so much as their equivalent of a cigarette butt behind, even though I'm more of the opinion that they would give us something very deliberate, like the monolith from Kubrick's film 2001.

So, after all that, my real question is, where is the absolute, incontrovertible, undeniable proof that we've been visited by aliens from another planet? I cannot accept that governments have it all--they're not that efficient to have hidden all traces dating back thousands of years. I also will not accept any sort of deus ex machina speculation as explanation: it's here, but ET is hiding it from us using some sort of mind ray/hypnotism/delusion until they're ready to reveal themselves, because there's no evidence of that either (although if you're writing a fiction story, I might accept it).

I also will not accept "implants" that people claim to have been inserted into their bodies during abduction episodes. There is no proof those implants come from another world. Recovered memories are also out, because the prosaic explanation is too easy.

In addition, I won't accept other easily faked evidence such as crop circles, "landing prints", bark stripped from trees (a la Rendlesham), or any other unidentified lights, or testimony which does not constitute incontrovertible proof that aliens from a planet other than Earth have been here.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

G'day NigelTM, welcome to the forum. I applaud your effort in reading through all 57 pages, so I suspect you know what skyeagle409's response will be (and trust me, it doesn't change at all).
You're quite right in that there is no conclusive proof that, by virtue of be unable to identify something in the sky, the only positive explanation is extraterrestrials entering our atmosphere in their spaceships.

Personally, I don't feel that hypersonic flight, perfomance characteristics that exceed any human aircraft of the time and a radar signature automatically eliminates all but an alien spaceship; since it's ultimately humans referencing the percieved data to terrestrial explanations, then attempting to debunk the skeptics with that logical tortology that the skeptic has no understanding of the technology involved to accomplish such feats, so cant accept that its ET's spaceship.

My apologies for being unable to provide a satisfactory proof for evidence of ET visitation, but unfortunately there is no undisputable proof at this point in time...

Apparently, you have read what I wrote, but failed to understand what has been written.

Remember, I have said over the months that it is just a piece of the overall puzzle. When all of the pieces are placed together, a picture begins to emerge as to what that puzzle depicts, and that is what is happening today.

Over the past two decades, there has been even more revelations regarding nor only the Roswell incident in particular, but UFOs in general. Now, countries around the globe have begun revealing that the UFOs in question, are of intelligently-controlled crafts, and the characteristics of their performance characteristics depicts an advanced technology not found in mankind's closet.

As I said before, the time is coming when full disclosure will reveal that the armchair skeptics were wrong all along, even though they have already been prove wrong on other facts relating to the UFO enigma, and I have been keeping tabs as well.

Actually, the Air Force wasn't laughing!

An Air Force colonel became upset when the GAO was pushed into the Roswell investigation by Congressman Steven Schiff, after the Air Force impeded his investigation into the Roswell incident and told one of the investigators the GAO had no business getting involved, but that didn't faze the GAO and it continued on with its investigation and what it found, was that very important records that would have shed some light on the Roswell incident, were destroyed illegally as noted by the GAO.

Apparently, it didn't want to known what actually was going on after the Air Force reported that it recovered a flying saucer.



As I told Hazzard, it is all part of the overall puzzle.



The truth of the matter is; UFOs are a reality and look around you, a number of countries have now begun revealing and stating what I have been doing for years. And, I expect more countries to come forward as well.

[

LOL!!

It has already been determined using the laws of physics and other means, that the UFOs in question were in fact, flying machines, and now, military organizations of countries from around the globe have already concurred and look what you posted!!!

You know, trying to re-write the laws of physics, just ain't gonna get it in the real world.

Actually, much longer than that!

There are ancient recordings and even the Air Force was telling its own cadets during the 1960's, that the UFO enigma was 50,000 years old. Eventually, the public found out what the Air Force was telling its cadets and the 'stuff' hit the fan.

So here is where the Air Force was telling the public one thing on UFOs, but telling its cadets a completing different story. In fact, the Air Force revealed to its cadets that it has been trying to shoot down "flying saucers" and went into detail on one incident where an F-86 Sabre Jet tried to shoot down a "flying saucer." In addtion, the Air Force revealed to its cadets that the Soviet Untio tried to shoot them down as well.

So, here is where the Air Force says one thing to the public, and another to its cadets.




They have, and in fact, a number of physical trace evidence have been recovered by the military. Recently, the U. S. Army finally revealed that its "Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit" (IPU) was a reality. It's mission was supported by Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly. What was it's original mission?!

The recovery of downed "flying saucers."

And, I am expecting more revelations from the military in the coming years on the reality of the UFOs in question, and not just in America, but from other countries from around the globe and in fact, some have already revealed that reality.

It should be handled very carefully!

Biological contact from different species can have serious consequences. For an example, NASA quarantined the Apollo astronauts for a reason, which brings to mind, the "ET Law," whichi is no longer on the books.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/et-law.htm

So in that regard, one must be very cautious when dealing with the unknown, and NASA understood that before the moon flight of Apollo 11, and why its crew were locked up for a period of time.