Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Proof of Extra Terrestrial Life
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
Pages: 1, 2, 3
skyeagle409
QUOTE(the_UNKNOWN_DEAD @ Feb 4 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]1529086[/snapback]
Once again you are incorrect. For one thing, Pluto's existance is not an extraordinary claim as alien UFO's are.


There's more evidence on the reality of UFOs than there are on Pluto and the UFOs I am talking about exclude conventional aircraft. It is extraordinary how UFOs conduct their performance operations,which in itself exclude conventional aircraft and UFOs have been witnessed in space, within the atmosphere and rising above the ocean waves. So, if the demonstrated technology involved is not ours, then the technology is that of someone other than mankind. Just a matter of calling upon the process of elimination.

QUOTE
For another, knowing the orbit of Pluto, we can predict where in the sky it will be...can you predict where the next alien UFO will be?
That was done in New Mexico by a team of scientist. At first, nothing was detected, that is, until they expanded their surveillance of the sky, then they began detecting the UFOs. Balloon teams also recorded their own UFO sightings over New Mexico as well. I

QUOTE

UFOs and Scientist In New Mexico

EVALUATION:
"No known optical or atmospheric phenomenon fits the facts. A natural object traveling at seven miles per second has never been seen to make a sudden upward turn. There is no known or projected source of silent, vaporless power for such a machine. No human being could have borne the tremendous "G" load brought to bear on the craft during its abrupt vertical veer."


I.The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.

II. It was about 105 feet in diameter.

III. It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

IV. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.

V. At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees - corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles - in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.

VI. The object was visible for 60 seconds.

VII. It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees


HOW SCIENTIST TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER

"Flying saucers are real and interplanetary"

Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN
Head of the Naval missile program at White Sands



http://www.ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Mogul_UFOs.html



QUOTE
This Pluto nonsense shows that you are capable of attempting to confuse the issue. It also demonstrates that you are well aware of the shortcomings of your argument.
It is not nonsense at all, especially since there's more evidence on UFO reality than on Pluto. In other words, skeptics accept evidence on Pluto but reject even more compelling evidence that point to UFO reality. What does that say in the way they depict real evidence regarding UFOs?


QUOTE
Try to stick to the subject...where is your evidence for alien visitors. Oh...and before you list your "radar numbers" again, be aware that does not constitute evidence, no matter how much you would like it to.


Wrong!! Be careful what you post because that same kind of evidence has been used by the FAA and the NTSB in aircraft accidents and that same kind of evidence has been used in a court of law as well and here, you rejected real and viable radar data evidence used for years by accident investigators around the globe. What you have just posted shows the short-comings of certain skeptics regarding certain evidence as they pertain to UFOs.

Here, you rejected the evidence I posted as nothing important yet such evidence has been used by governments around the world since such evidence is considered viable evidence. In fact, the evidence I posted was presented by the Belgian government at an international press conference and from that evidence, the government was able to exclude natural atmospheric phenomena, radar glitches, conventional aircraft, birds, insects, light reflections, and even celestrial bodies. So, that evidence is evidence just the same that will stand up in a court of law.

To recap, the evidence I posted will stand up to scrutiny under any court of law and scientific investigations (as was the case regarding the data I posted) and such evidence are normally used by governments around the globe in aircraft accidents.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(Lilly @ Feb 4 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]1529100[/snapback]
The evidence for KBOs and Dwarf Planets is not (quite reasonably) the same type of evidence required for alien visitation. Pluto is "out there", this is known. If ET is "out there", or "visiting here" is something yet to be determined.


UFO reality is well-known as well. After all, we can go back and re-examine viable data evidence collected over the decades by scientist and military organizations from around the world.
Blazea58
Yea i still have yet to see someone show me a peice of pluto also. Sure pluto may exist, but the way he is trying to put it is that skeptics try to find the facts based on what it isen't rather then what it is. I prefer to have my own opinions and beliefs despite the fact that we need proof to tell others, but i don't care to encourage others to follow me.
If you want to get evidence of a paticular belief with proof then you may as well tell me that all skeptics are also atheists. Sure science needs the proof, but believers also do to ya know? People don't like being brushed off just because their "evidence" isen't good enough for others. Most of you dont even have the time to read 90% of the links provided from people who have come forward with highly convincing stuff released from the most reliable sources.

I think skyeagle is on the right track here, people just tend to jump to conclusions on both ends far to fast. If people took the time to review everything put on the table they probably wouldn't come to the same conclusions because alot is people just voicing their opinions and beliefs without any evidence, or time spent reading into it to back it up either.

So were in a never ending spiral here and it would be a plus if people who think the alien theory is so bogus, start going on the FOIA site and reading up some of these so called "Bogus" claims or made up fairy tails, realizing that there is alot more "data evidence" then we even need to actually prove the existance of Extraterrestrials. How is radar not proof of anything in some peoples eyes is beyond me, we may as well chuck out black boxes and radars because they are useless! to prove anything as alot of skeptics say. The only way it will sway them is if its put on tv worldwide and they say "this radar PROVES ET" but then they will say what about bodies? o.O then it will be dna because the body chunks couldnt be sent to every scientist in the world to confirm it, then they would want some physical evidence that they even had a craft to get here, bla bla this wont end lol.

I cant stand all these people pretending like they are real scientists on a forum anyways where they cannot prove anything just by telling us they have to analyze things, when they infact have no tools to do so o.O
Stellar
QUOTE

Okay! This for starters.

QUOTE
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

The data came from this radar system.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/vault/9054/belradar.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/vault/9054/prescon.jpg



How does that prove the existence of alien craft?

QUOTE
Yet again... where's the proof that its an alien craft?

QUOTE

It proves a very valid point, what proof can you provide that say's Pluto is actually there?


Ill get to that in a bit.

QUOTE

Like Skyeagel said nothing but fuzzy photo's.
Lets say that thats all there is. In that case, there you go. Proof of Pluto, because Pluto is simply an object of a certain size that orbits our sun.

QUOTE

Well I sure can say that there are thousands apon thousands of pic's like that depicting alien craft.


That's where you're wrong. The pictures are depicting unidentified flying objects, not alien craft. You can not prove that they are alien craft, where as I can prove that Pluto is "an object".

QUOTE

Or as we should call it craft that man kind can not possibly make.
Why?

QUOTE

Hence if we want to call all the sightings black op's then wow we are way ahead of our time.


Perhaps we are, perhaps a certain number of these things have to do with an unexplained natural phenomena... the results are not conclusive.

QUOTE

It's not, so why is this phenomena left alone and not given the full respect it deserves.
Its not what? Not given the full respect it deserves? Its given a lot of respect. I think a lot of the scientific progress, though, is dampened because of all the people that'll cry "Aliens!" at any object in the sky that does not look clearly like a Boeing 747.

QUOTE

The believers are always tasked with give me proof that they are alien, I would like evidence that shows they are either man made or weather related or due to swamp gas. GIVE me evidence as to what they are and not to what thay are not....


THats an invalid statement. Give me evidence that I am not god. Please, try.

QUOTE
If this can be explained away then explain away and tell the world what these things are.


No one's saying it can be explained away, we're saying there are plenty of possible explanations.
Stellar

QUOTE

Do we have this kind of information from aircraft on planet Pluto? We have for UFOs!


QUOTE
An Air Force aircrew as an intensely luminous light, followed by ground-radar and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47... An Air Force RB-47, equipped with electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear and manned by six officers, was followed by an unidentified object for a distance of well over 700 mi. and for a time period of 1.5 hr., as it flew from Mississippi, through Louisiana and Texas and into Oklahoma. The object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew as an intensely luminous light, followed by ground-radar and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Of special interest in this case are several instances of simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct "channels," and rapidity of maneuvers beyond the prior experience of the aircrew.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html



Once again... where does that prove that its an alien craft?

QUOTE

There's more evidence on the reality of UFOs than there are on Pluto
Erm, I'd say theres about the same amount. Both are proven to exist. UFOs exist, and Pluto exists. Your argument, however, was based on proving that UFOs were alien craft...

QUOTE

So, if the demonstrated technology involved is not ours, then the technology is that of someone other than mankind. Just a matter of calling upon the process of elimination.


Unfortunately, you can not prove that the technology is not infact ours. And that's the weakness of your argument. They may very well not be conventional aircraft... that does not mean that they are not built by man.

QUOTE

It is not nonsense at all, especially since there's more evidence on UFO reality than on Pluto. In other words, skeptics accept evidence on Pluto but reject even more compelling evidence that point to UFO reality. What does that say in the way they depict real evidence regarding UFOs?
*sigh* rolleyes.gif

QUOTE

To recap, the evidence I posted will stand up to scrutiny under any court of law and scientific investigations (as was the case regarding the data I posted) and such evidence are normally used by governments around the globe in aircraft accidents.


THen I dare you to present the case to the courts and argue that it proves that aliens exist. See how far you'll get.

itsnotoutthere
QUOTE(The Muse @ Feb 3 2007, 08:05 AM) [snapback]1527803[/snapback]
For the past five decades the human race has been caught between two worlds, two paradigms. While millions of people worldwide have come to understand they are not alone in the universe, that an extraterrestrial presence has become manifest about the planet, the governments of the world, frozen in place by fear and indecision, have been unable to publicly engage this new reality.

Stephen Bassett, is a lobbyist, activist, commentator and columnist. He is the founder of the Paradigm Research Group and the Executive Director of the political action committee, X-PPAC. His work has been referenced in, among others, the Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Legal Times, Christian Science Monitor, National Journal and O'Dweyer's Washington Report. He has been featured in documentaries and a guest on numerous radio programs addressing the "Politics of Disclosure."

In this highly spirited and passionate interview, Stephen calls on every citizen to demand the proof of extra terrestrial life that we intuitively already know exists. Get ready to be inspired and motivated!

Proof of Life
http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/sbassett.htm



hmm...
the_UNKNOWN_DEAD
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Feb 4 2007, 07:55 AM) [snapback]1529163[/snapback]
It is not nonsense at all, especially since there's more evidence on UFO reality than on Pluto. In other words, skeptics accept evidence on Pluto but reject even more compelling evidence that point to UFO reality. What does that say in the way they depict real evidence regarding UFOs?


It tells me more about you than anything...it tells me that you will say ANYTHING irregardless of how truthful it is because you are so desperate to believe in alien visitors.

Your creduousness saddens me more than you'll ever know.

QUOTE(Blazea58 @ Feb 4 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]1529192[/snapback]
How is radar not proof of anything in some peoples eyes is beyond me...


Proof of what exactly? Proof of aliens??? Or perhaps proof of advanced mundane aircraft? Or proof of the inability of Radar to be accurate 100% of the time?

Proof of what, exactly???

Unless you can ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATE all other explanations, then to simply say "it must be an alien aircraft" is extremely biased and most certainly NOT the way an actual scientific investigation is conducted...

(as you point out later in your post, there are no scientists on this board, so how would people here know how a scientific investigation is conducted. original.gif)

QUOTE
...we may as well chuck out black boxes and radars because they are useless! to prove anything as alot of skeptics say.
Have you witnessed anyone here say anything even remotely resembling what you have posted? No?? Then stop saying silly things like that.

QUOTE
The only way it will sway them is if its put on tv worldwide and they say "this radar PROVES ET" but then they will say what about bodies? o.O then it will be dna because the body chunks couldnt be sent to every scientist in the world to confirm it, then they would want some physical evidence that they even had a craft to get here, bla bla this wont end lol.


Handwave all you want...unless/until someone can show evidence that can be tested, evidence that is more than "I saw a light in the sky", or "look at my numbers", then the alien visitors idea will be relegated to where it rightfully belongs...to myths and fairy tales.

QUOTE
I cant stand all these people pretending like they are real scientists on a forum anyways where they cannot prove anything just by telling us they have to analyze things, when they infact have no tools to do so o.O


How would you know that there are no "real scientists" on this forum? I'll admit that some of the reasoning I have seen here certainly demonstrates that there are a number of people here who obviously are not scientists, but that's not the same thing.

Also, It is certainly your perogative to believe something without evidence...but I'm getting damn tired of being told how wrong I am simply because I refuse to believe until I have sufficient evidence.







rapid7

Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair. laugh.gif

et's daddy
this thread is the perfect example of why i left UM for awhile

you can type until your fingers blister and unless you go to a skeptics house in a UFO with little green men they wont accept a word you say

to a point i understand, but to a point i dont

sky, i think maybe a better arguement then the existence of Pluto may have been whether or not we went to the moon (for the record, yes i do believe we did)...........afterall, what proof is there that we went to the moon ?..........blurry photos and video (we have those showing UFOs)....expert testimony (again we have that for UFOs)........i found it funny when the one poster said its nice to pick and choose which experts to believe, isnt that what youre doing ?......why do you believe we landed on the moon ?..........because your photos and experts said we did ?........well what makes your photos and experts better then mine ?

thats a reality show we need........dueling experts thumbsup.gif

on to UFO evidence

Stellar readily and correctly admits that there are UFOs.....i dont think that is much of a problem for most anyone (diehard skeptics included).......the problem falls in when you introduce the word extraterrestrial......made from beings not of this earth........that i can understand to a point

even many diehard skeptics seem to acknowledge some of the sightings are actual craft that the normal person just doesnt understand.....problem is that doesnt prove it was made by humans on this planet

well........surprise surprise.......i have a few problems here

1st Roswell......ever time the Government comes out with an explanation it is more lame then the last......i wont go into it here unless you really want me to.....just to say it is a valid reason not to trust everything they tell you about what happens in the sky

2nd the actual evidence people agree is in the sky....the confirmed UFOs.......why do i have a problem with this ?.........can i prove it wasnt made by man ?......actually yes i think i can, or i should say, i think i can prove we didnt make it more then you can prove we did

yeah i know some of you think we are just going around in circles with this........but i just want you skeptics to answer me 2 simple things......it could really go a far way in putting all this to rest

1.....if you agree we have craft in the skies that we made that can do all these things people claim.....travel at enormous rates of speed.....turn at right angles while at speed......hover......go from such a rate of speed to a stop in virtually an instant......and so on and so on..........if we created such craft, where are they ?.........i mean the Stealth Fighter is now known of so is the Blackbird SR-71......and they cant do such things........and yet they were highly classified and we know of them.......so dont use that as an excuse...........we have had Stealth Fighters shot down so we could really use those craft you claim we built and are currently operating

2......operating these craft.....so some of you agree there are craft......and you assert we built and are operating these craft........how so ?........i submit any scientist will tell you that the manuvers these craft perform would rip apart the human body...so, just how is it that we are operating them ?........you agree the craft is up there and yet the experts will tell you there is no possible way we could be operating them.......hmmmmmmmm.......seems to be cause to theorize some being besides us is operating them

well, like i said, this thread is exactly the reason i took a break here......there is just no reasoning with some people.....and that will not change until you introduce them to little green men that give them a ride to their home-world.......well i havent met those green men yet......so there is little hope my post here will help any no.gif

but maybe it will help show sky just what he is up against and show him he isnt alone


Stellar
QUOTE

i mean the Stealth Fighter is now known of so is the Blackbird SR-71......and they cant do such things........and yet they were highly classified and we know of them.......so dont use that as an excuse...........we have had Stealth Fighters shot down so we could really use those craft you claim we built and are currently operating
Indeed, they were classified, but now they are declassified.. which is why we know about them.

QUOTE

and you assert we built and are operating these craft.......


I dont assert anything. While I believe aliens to exist somewhere in the universe, I do not assert that they are or arent operating these craft, I meerly point out that its possible that they are, its possible that we are, its possible that its a natural phenomena... in either case, there is no evidence to prove that it is aliens operating the craft.

QUOTE

i submit any scientist will tell you that the manuvers these craft perform would rip apart the human body...so, just how is it that we are operating them ?........
They would rip any living body apart... unless some exotic technology is in use that dampens the effects of inertia on the occupants... or perhaps there are no occupants...

QUOTE

you agree the craft is up there and yet the experts will tell you there is no possible way we could be operating them


Point me to one of these experts.

skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 4 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1529209[/snapback]
How does that prove the existence of alien craft?


Well, show me any aircraft that can mimic such performance and stay intact.

QUOTE
Yet again... where's the proof that its an alien craft?
Once again, show my an aircraft that can mimic such performance. If you are unable to do so, then the question will be answered as to whose flying crafts they are.

QUOTE
Lets say that thats all there is.
There's much more!

QUOTE
In that case, there you go. Proof of Pluto, because Pluto is simply an object of a certain size that orbits our sun.
There are those who can't even agree that Pluto is even a planet, but Pluto has never been captured on ground-based and airborne radars but UFOs have. To further add, I have never seen Pluto with my own naked eyes but I have seen a real UFO with my naked eyes. In fact, millions of people around the globe who have never seen Pluto with their own eyes, have seen saucer-shaped flying objects whose flight characteristics exclude conventional aircraft.

QUOTE
That's where you're wrong. The pictures are depicting unidentified flying objects, not alien craft.


You should know good and well you cannot make such a statement if you are not familiar with the data evidence nor what it depicts.

QUOTE
You can not prove that they are alien craft,....
Once again, it comes down to whose flying crafts have been exhibiting such exotic and advanced technology. Did mankind have a flying craft in 1954 capable of flying 9000 mph within the Earth's atmosphere? If not, then that is another clue the crafts are not ours.

QUOTE
where as I can prove that Pluto is "an object".[/qluote]What can you present to prove Pluto's existence that I cannot use to prove the existence of UFOs? I can take what you give and turn around and give you much more in the way that proves UFO reality.

QUOTE
I think a lot of the scientific progress, though, is dampened because of all the people that'll cry "Aliens!" at any object in the sky that does not look clearly like a Boeing 747.


Well, if the object is 100 meters in diameter and saucer-shaped, hovers and then zips off at 7000 mph, then it can be reasonable to assume the object is not a B-747. In fact, it can be safely assumed the object is not any aircraft of any kind.
jaylemurph
Well, unless the object have bizarre interior physics, the high-speed turns and rapid accelerations many UFOs exhibit would do very nasty things to the human frame.

--Jaylemurph
skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 4 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1529210[/snapback]
Once again... where does that prove that its an alien craft?


The specifics of the data proves that the UFO wasn't an aircraft. In fact, the data proves that the UFO was definitely an artificial flying entity whose performance characteristics are far beyond any conventional aircraft of mankind flying in our skies today. The Air Force knew that but decided to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by claiming the UFO was an American Airlines DC-6, a propeller-driven aircraft the Air Force claims was out-flying a jet bomber at altitudes and velocties far beyond the capabilty of the DC-6. Some of the skeptics took that bait but those in the know, did not. You can find the specifics of that incident in Project Blue Book along with the Air Force's conclusion on that incident.

QUOTE
Erm, I'd say theres about the same amount. Both are proven to exist. UFOs exist, and Pluto exists. Your argument, however, was based on proving that UFOs were alien craft...
That is based on the fact that the UFOs in question were intelligently-controlled flying objects whose exhibited advanced technology was not in the hands of mankind so here we are with this important question: What aircraft did mankind have in 1952 that could fly at over 7000 mph within the Earth's atmosphere and not create a sonic boom? Such high performance was demonstrated in 1952 right over a nation's capital.

QUOTE
Unfortunately, you can not prove that the technology is not infact ours. And that's the weakness of your argument. They may very well not be conventional aircraft... that does not mean that they are not built by man.


If those objects were truly built by mankind during the 1940's, I wouldn't be flying around in a jet airliner using inferior jet engines today.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(et @ Feb 4 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]1529517[/snapback]
this thread is the perfect example of why i left UM for awhile

you can type until your fingers blister and unless you go to a skeptics house in a UFO with little green men they wont accept a word you say


If you did, you would probably be met by claims of Hollywood intervention. After all, there were still heavier-than-air airplane skeptics days after the Wright Brothers had already flown.

QUOTE
sky, i think maybe a better arguement then the existence of Pluto may have been whether or not we went to the moon (for the record, yes i do believe we did)...........afterall, what proof is there that we went to the moon ?..........blurry photos and video (we have those showing UFOs)....expert testimony (again we have that for UFOs)........i found it funny when the one poster said its nice to pick and choose which experts to believe, isnt that what youre doing ?......
Actually, I acqured knowledge of whose is right and who is wrong after living in the world of aviation for forty years, not to mention my own UFO sighting in Vietnam in 1968. That is how I was able to confront well-known skeptic James Oberg after I caught him deliberately distorting the facts on the avionics of the F-4 Phantom. That was in regards to a debate I had with him concering the Iranian UFO encounter of 1976 on the old CNN message board years ago.

QUOTE
why do you believe we landed on the moon ?..........


Growing up under the threat of communism and knowing the Soviets had the tracking capability to know if we went to the moon or not, I then assumed that knowing the Soviets considered themselves far superior in space than the United States, they would not have allowed us to get away with fraudulent Apollo moon flights. I wouldn't have been surprised if Soviet officials considered each of our moom flights as "rubbing-the-mud-in-their-faces"kind of thing and doing it in the eyes of the international community. I am sure there would have been someone in the Soviet Union who would have cried foul ball had the moon flight been truly hoaxed.

QUOTE
well what makes your photos and experts better then mine ?
Their backgrounds, history and your knowledge to know if they are wrong or right.

QUOTE
thats a reality show we need........dueling experts thumbsup.gif
on to UFO evidence


That is why knowledge and experience are so very important. That way, you will know when to "hold 'em and when to throw 'em," otherwise, you will be at the mercy of those who are in the business of pulling the 'wool' over peoples' eyes. That is how I caught Tim Printy, James Oberg, Robert Carroll, Joe Nickell and others who were concocting false information on the internet. I even corrected the folks of the Federation of American Scientist when I noticed that their information on the Air Force's F-15 Eagle was incorrect. I am happy to say they have made their correction on their website in regards to the F-15.

QUOTE
Stellar readily and correctly admits that there are UFOs.....i dont think that is much of a problem for most anyone (diehard skeptics included).......the problem falls in when you introduce the word extraterrestrial......made from beings not of this earth........that i can understand to a point
I will admit that I got further than the typical UFO believer but there is a reason. I have also disagreed with other UFOlogist on incidents such as the Belgian UFO incident of 1990. Some of them have claimed the UFO was an F-117 but the F-117 is not a supersonic aircraft, which had me bewildered. After all, the radar contacts were solid and clear so what was the purpose of stealth technology of the F-117 stealth fighter? Apparently, they tried to come to the conclusion as to what the UFO was without placing the pieces of the puzzle together to get the true picture of what the puzzle is all abou so they missed all of the clues the UFO was not an F-117 and I pointed out that very important point to them. Besides, the F-117 cannot hover and that was yet another clue the stealth fighter could not have been that UFO.

QUOTE
even many diehard skeptics seem to acknowledge some of the sightings are actual craft that the normal person just doesnt understand.....problem is that doesnt prove it was made by humans on this planet


All it take is a close examination of the performance characteristics and the witnesses accounts that tie the performance characteristics to those UFOs. That is why the Air Force stated in their intelligence report on UFO maneuvers in 1952 that if the UFOs exhibit that kind of maneuvers as reported, then the UFOs are not ours. I am sure that Major Donald Keyhole would have brought that out on the CBS, Armstrong Circle Star Theater on January 22, 1958 had the censors not cut him off on "Live TV." Kenneth Arnold was to have appeared on that program as well.

QUOTE
1st Roswell......ever time the Government comes out with an explanation it is more lame then the last......i wont go into it here unless you really want me to.....just to say it is a valid reason not to trust everything they tell you about what happens in the sky
Roswell was a government cover-up and the Air Force knew very well that no Mogul balloon train #4 was responsible for that incident. Now, it seems that others are finally coming to that conclusion as well. After all, Mogul balloon trains were covered with manufacturer, warning and identification labels, REWARD TAGS, and even questionaires, so how in the world, or out of it, could anyone confuse a downed Mogul balloon train as flying saucers with all of those labels attached. What the Air Force didn't say was that Mogul balloon trains were occasionally recovered by ordinary civilians. Here is a photo of what a down Mogul balloon looks like.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Trenton_...mes_7-14-47.jpg

Doesn't look much like a flying saucer but the Air Force managed to convince people that military personnel mistook the object as a flying saucer anyway, that, after fooling the publc for 47 years that only a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident. Not many people know that there was yet another weather balloon story as well.

QUOTE
FBI DALLAS 7-8-47 6-17 PM

DIRECTOR AND SAC, CINCINNATI URGENT

FLYING DISC, INFORMATION CONCERNING. MAJOR CURTAN, HEADQUARTERS

EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT

PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW

MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED

FROM A BALLON BY A CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY

FEET IN DIAMETER. MAJOR CURTAN FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND

RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR

REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE

AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT *********x BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. DISC AND

BALLOON BEING TRANSPORTED TO WRIGHT FIELD BY SPECIAL PLANE FOR EXAMIN

INFORMATION PROVIDED THIS OFFICE BECAUSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN CASE

***x AND FACT THAT NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ASSOCIATED PRESS, A

OTHERS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK STORY OF LOCATION OF DISC TODAY. MAJOR

CURTAN ADVISED WOULD REQUEST WRIGHT FIELD TO ADVISE CINCINNATI

OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEING

CONDUCTED.

WYLY

END

C***X ACK IN ORDER

WA ?? FBI CI MJW

BPI HS

S-32 PM O

O-22 PM OM FBI WASH DC VH




eqgumby
I hate this.
UFO's exist. We DO NOT know what they are. Taking the leap that they ARE alien controlled is exactly that, a leap.
All the data produced as far as I can see proves that SOMETHING is up, just not exactly what.
No one wants to make fun of any one until people start this.........
QUOTE
The Air Force knew that but decided to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by claiming the UFO was an American Airlines DC-6,
because this is when you start assuming things.
And this..........
QUOTE
There are those who can't even agree that Pluto is even a planet, but Pluto has never been captured on ground-based and airborne radars but UFOs have.
is just argumentative.
Stellar
QUOTE

Well, show me any aircraft that can mimic such performance and stay intact.
What would that accomplish? What if I cant show you any known aircraft that can mimic such performance? That does absolutely nothing for your case, because the craft could be a new experimental and top secret craft, man made, but with such astonishing technology.

QUOTE

Once again, show my an aircraft that can mimic such performance. If you are unable to do so, then the question will be answered as to whose flying crafts they are.


How so? Just because I cant show you any known aircraft with such performance doesnt mean that its not possible that the craft are manmade. Hell, back in the days before the SR-71, I could have said "Look at that aircraft! Its much faster than anything else we have! It must be alien! Why? Because we dont have aircraft that can get to such high speeds!"

QUOTE

There's much more!
Indeed, there is much more evidence for the existence of Pluto, thank you for agreeing.

Jeez man, do you even read my posts or do you just answer mindlessly?

QUOTE

There are those who can't even agree that Pluto is even a planet


Indeed, but thats just a matter of the definition of "planet" and is of no bearing to the case of whether there is enough evidence to prove that Pluto (whether it be called a planet or not) exists.

QUOTE

but Pluto has never been captured on ground-based and airborne radars but UFOs have.
Pluto doesnt have to have been captured on radar, its been captured on other instruments... and yes, UFOs have been captured on radar... how does that prove they are alien craft?

QUOTE

To further add, I have never seen Pluto with my own naked eyes but I have seen a real UFO with my naked eyes.


And what's your case? There's plenty of photographs of Pluto, measurements of Pluto, etc. which you have access to, which shows that the object exists. You have seen a UFO with your own eyes, congradulations! Did you see little alien beings waving to you from the port-holes? No? Then how do you know that that UFO was an alien craft? You dont.

QUOTE

In fact, millions of people around the globe who have never seen Pluto with their own eyes, have seen saucer-shaped flying objects whose flight characteristics exclude conventional aircraft.
Well, no one's seen radio waves, but there are other meathodes of determining their existance! As for UFOs not being conventional aircraft... no one's saying they are all conventional aircraft some undoubtedly are though. (Do you even know what conventional means?) The ones that arent? Well... they can be unconventional yet still be man made! The lunar lander was not a conventional craft, yet it was still man made.

QUOTE

You should know good and well you cannot make such a statement if you are not familiar with the data evidence nor what it depicts.


Ahh, but I am aware of the date evidence aswell as what it depicts, and what it doesnt depict.

QUOTE
Once again, it comes down to whose flying crafts have been exhibiting such exotic and advanced technology. Did mankind have a flying craft in 1954 capable of flying 9000 mph within the Earth's atmosphere? If not, then that is another clue the crafts are not ours.


Perhaps we did. Perhaps it was some sort of natural phenomena?
skyeagle409
QUOTE(eqgumby @ Feb 5 2007, 05:34 AM) [snapback]1529951[/snapback]
I hate this.
UFO's exist. We DO NOT know what they are. Taking the leap that they ARE alien controlled is exactly that, a leap.


Did we have saucer-shaped aircraft capable of flyng 9000 mph in 1954? Did we have saucer-shaped aircraft capable of right-angled maneuvers at over 40+ Gs and stay intact? If not, then the saucer-shaped UFOs are not ours. Besides, NORAD trackS them coming in from deep space many times each year, according to engineers at Aerojet, the folks who build space surveillance satellites.

QUOTE
All the data produced as far as I can see proves that SOMETHING is up, just not exactly what.


What the data depicts is an artificial entity that reacts intelligently to radar lock-ons and the nature of the performance characteristics exclude aircraft for practical reasons. That same UFO, which was tracked on multiple ground-based and airborne radar systems, was described by eyewitnesses as large as a B-747.

skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 5 2007, 05:38 AM) [snapback]1529955[/snapback]
What would that accomplish? What if I cant show you any known aircraft that can mimic such performance?


I already know from experience that no aircraft can mimic such performance characteristics of real UFOs.

QUOTE
That does absolutely nothing for your case, because the craft could be a new experimental and top secret craft, man made, but with such astonishing technology.


I already know from experience the UFOs in question are not experimental aircraft either. There are certain protocols that classified experimental military aircraft must meet before each flight and the UFOs in question don't even come close to meeting any of them. In fact, the UFOs normally violate numerous FAA and military flight regulations and do so blatantly, hence another good reason why they are not experimental aircraft of the military. When someone suggest that experimental aircraft are responsible, that simply tells me they do not understand the way we do business with our classified aircraft.



skyeagle409

QUOTE
Pluto doesnt have to have been captured on radar, its been captured on other instruments... and yes, UFOs have been captured on radar... how does that prove they are alien craft?
The detailed specifics of their performance characteristics. Considering that NORAD has been tracking them flying in from deep space many times each year is another example.

QUOTE
And what's your case? There's plenty of photographs of Pluto, measurements of Pluto, etc. which you have access to, which shows that the object exists.


We have detailed recordings from many airborne and ground-based electronic sources of the flight characteristics of real UFOs, including those larger than aircraft carriers.

QUOTE
You have seen a UFO with your own eyes, congradulations! Did you see little alien beings waving to you from the port-holes? No? Then how do you know that that UFO was an alien craft? You dont.
I knew the craft wasn’t ours! We didn’t have orange saucer-shaped aircraft in Vietnam that could fly thousands of miles per hour.

QUOTE

Well, no one's seen radio waves, but there are other meathodes of determining their existance! As for UFOs not being conventional aircraft... no one's saying they are all conventional aircraft some undoubtedly are though. (Do you even know what conventional means?) The ones that arent?


Yes! Unconventional: Saucer-shaped UFOs up to 2000 feet in diameter capable of hypersonic flight within the Earth’s atmosphere without creating a sonic boom.

QUOTE
Well... they can be unconventional yet still be man made! The lunar lander was not a conventional craft, yet it was still man made.
Was it capable of right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs at hypersonic speeds?

QUOTE
Ahh, but I am aware of the date evidence aswell as what it depicts, and what it doesnt depict.


You’ve got the mike, so decipher the radar data evidence I posted yesterday for all to see. Give us details as to what that UFO is doing.

QUOTE
Perhaps we did. Perhaps it was some sort of natural phenomena?
Nope. Commercial and military pilots and ground-based witnesses reported structured saucer-shaped flying machines, which had nothing to do with natural phenomena. Besides, the Air Force’s own scientific report of 1969 had already excluded atmospheric phenomena as the cause of the UFO case files in question.

QUOTE


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.


In fact, meteorologist, commercial and military pilots, and radar operators concurred as well.


et's daddy
sky youre just out for a fight no matter who its with

i come here to back the believers and you attack me......i dont understand that at all......its like you just come out swinging and you dont care who you hit blink.gif

Stellar.....as for you......you take it right to the brink but your extremely careful not to take that final step arent you ?

it almost seems you know we're right youre just afraid to admit it

you seem to agree with everything we say about the craft doing things we "know" human made craft cant do, you just wont admit the tech is alien

you state you cant show me an example of a human made plane that can do such things, but claim that isnt as bad as me not being able to show you a little green man........i submit to you it is indeed just as bad....and maybe more so

people have seen these craft do maneuvers 10 times better then the SR-71 or the Stealth years before those planes were even developed, and yet that tech has not been admitted to being used by humans to this day.......we have planes being shot down and people being killed with the tech we admit to having......so, if we do have flying saucer tech ahy isnt it being used in battle ? .........what are they waiting for ?

like sky said.......if this flying saucer tech has been around since the 50's or before......why am i still flying around in a crappy 747 ? why do we still use Space Shuttles that blow up ?.........if we do have and have had this highly advanced tech then you have no answer.........my case for the tech not being ours is strong and yours for it being ours is weak

if one nation has mastered this tech they would rule the world........no modern known about fighter could challenge a saucer not even the Stealth......aside from nuclear tech there is nothing to stop a country from taking over if it had saucer tech

well, you admit the saucer tech exists........you admit the saucers do things we cant explain as a general public (including some personnel trained to explain such things....military pilots and air traffic controllers).......and you provide no evidence that the tech is ours

on the contrary i provide evidence that the tech isnt ours........747's take hours to get from coast to coast while saucer tech would take minutes........military jets get shot down........space shuttles blow up..........now you may say all my evidence is circumstantial........and i say enough circumstantial evidence will win you a case wink2.gif
eqgumby
No No No! Only HIS circumstantial evidence is good enough. Yours, not so good.
Remember, you don't just have to believe, you have to believe HIM.
hazzard
There is an atmospheric phenomenon called luminous plasmoids that actually exhibit 3 very distinct "alien" features!

1) It is very bright
2) It can produce a strong radar return
3) It can move in highly erratic trajectories, exhibiting very high accelerations

Thus, looks very much like the "ET radar evidence" . While it has not been determined that these were indeed the cause of some of the UFO radar data, they could have been. And what is the more likely scenario, ET or a naturally occurring atmospheric phenomenon?! I know where I would place my bet.

The co-existence of anomalous lights of natural origin and of the new high-tec experimental flying machines born from some mind of the “Skunk Works INC” might permit to some government to operate in total secret by letting the public opinion believe what they like.

Could there be alien probes on Earth somewere, yes, but the most probable explanation is one, or both, of these two senarios.

In my honest opinion, most UFO sightings fit some natural atmospheric phenomenon or other. But then there are the few ones that dont. What are those? We just dont know. They could be some unknown atmospheric phenomenon, they could also be ET! I am not the one to denounce ET and trust me, there is nothing I wish more than to actually have a confirmed contact. But until we can prove without a doubt what it is, for me it remains a UFO.

And as we all ...hrrm....most of us know, Unidentified does not mean Alien.
Bogeyman
QUOTE(hazzard @ Feb 5 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]1530241[/snapback]
There is an atmospheric phenomenon called luminous plasmoids that actually exhibit 3 very distinct "alien" features!

1) It is very bright
2) It can produce a strong radar return
3) It can move in highly erratic trajectories, exhibiting very high accelerations

Thus, looks very much like the "ET radar evidence" . While it has not been determined that these were indeed the cause of some of the UFO radar data, they could have been. And what is the more likely scenario, ET or a naturally occurring atmospheric phenomenon?! I know where I would place my bet.

The co-existence of anomalous lights of natural origin and of the new high-tec experimental flying machines born from some mind of the “Skunk Works INC” might permit to some government to operate in total secret by letting the public opinion believe what they like.

Could there be alien probes on Earth somewere, yes, but the most probable explanation is one, or both, of these two senarios.

In my honest opinion, most UFO sightings fit some natural atmospheric phenomenon or other. But then there are the few ones that dont. What are those? We just dont know. They could be some unknown atmospheric phenomenon, they could also be ET! I am not the one to denounce ET and trust me, there is nothing I wish more than to actually have a confirmed contact. But until we can prove without a doubt what it is, for me it remains a UFO.

And as we all ...hrrm....most of us know, Unidentified does not mean Alien.


Not saying you're being selective or anything Haz but this from earthlights.org

"Earthlights are referred to as “the Hessdalen Phenomenon” or “Luminous Plasmoid (LP).” These lights are one and the same. A Luminous Plasmoid is physically described as plasma at high pressure which normally has a very short relaxation time. Its life-time may be only a few seconds and perhaps up to a minute, if an external source does not energize it in a continuous way."

Up to a minute if not energised by an external source.......Just bear in mind the majority of sightings of these balls of light last way more than a minute.
et's daddy
tonight at 8pm ET there is a show on alien trace evidence.......should fit right in here

im sure the skeptics will easily be able to explain away everything for us thumbsup.gif
Stellar
QUOTE

What can you present to prove Pluto's existence that I cannot use to prove the existence of UFOs? I can take what you give and turn around and give you much more in the way that proves UFO reality.
*sigh* Your case is not that UFOs exist, but that UFOs are alien craft. You can not prove that UFOs are alien craft, whereas I can prove that Pluto is a real object.

QUOTE

The specifics of the data proves that the UFO wasn't an aircraft


No it doesnt. It proves that it wasnt an aircraft known to man today.

QUOTE

That is based on the fact that the UFOs in question were intelligently-controlled flying objects whose exhibited advanced technology was not in the hands of mankind so here we are with this important question: What aircraft did mankind have in 1952 that could fly at over 7000 mph within the Earth's atmosphere and not create a sonic boom? Such high performance was demonstrated in 1952 right over a nation's capital.
Perhaps there was some sort of top secret technology available to us then, or perhaps it wasnt an intelligently controled object... A better question is, why cant you remain consistant with your figures? One minute its 9000 mph, then its 7000 mph... And please, show me what kind of exotic technology of the 50's was used to clock this object at one of those speeds...

QUOTE

If those objects were truly built by mankind during the 1940's, I wouldn't be flying around in a jet airliner using inferior jet engines today.


Why?

QUOTE

I already know from experience that no aircraft can mimic such performance characteristics of real UFOs.
No *known* aircraft. Then again, why does it even have to be an aircraft or any sort of craft to begin with?

QUOTE


I already know from experience the UFOs in question are not experimental aircraft either.


Excuse me, but no, you dont. Your experience does not permit you access to every single classified project in the world, does it?

QUOTE
There are certain protocols that classified experimental military aircraft must meet before each flight and the UFOs in question don't even come close to meeting any of them. In fact, the UFOs normally violate numerous FAA and military flight regulations and do so blatantly, hence another good reason why they are not experimental aircraft of the military. When someone suggest that experimental aircraft are responsible, that simply tells me they do not understand the way we do business with our classified aircraft.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the people responsible for super secret craft such as these (assuming they are creating them) give a damn about all those regulations. Sure, with projects like the F-22 and the JSF, and other such projects which can be readily identified as government projects, theres more of a reason for them to follow those regulations... but with exotic technology as this? What's anyone going to do to them? Catch them? Hah. With what? There have been occasions where the US broke its own laws, this can happen again, when dealing with such projects.

QUOTE

The detailed specifics of their performance characteristics. Considering that NORAD has been tracking them flying in from deep space many times each year is another example.


So what's your point? They could be flying in from space (deep space? Excuse me, but what kind of radar does NORAD have to be able to track objects that small up to such ranges as to be classified "deep space"?), yet they could still be man made, or natural phenomena.

QUOTE

We have detailed recordings from many airborne and ground-based electronic sources of the flight characteristics of real UFOs, including those larger than aircraft carriers.
Wow... they have unusual flight characteristics... how does that make them alien?

QUOTE

I knew the craft wasn’t ours!


bull. THats not something you can know. I feel like I'm talking to a parrot.
Stellar
QUOTE
We didn’t have orange saucer-shaped aircraft in Vietnam that could fly thousands of miles per hour.
No? We didnt? How do you know? When dealing with such extraordinary explanations such as "they're alien craft", why is it so much less possible for the equally extraordinary explanation "they're ultra top secret human craft" to be true?

QUOTE

Yes! Unconventional: Saucer-shaped UFOs up to 2000 feet in diameter capable of hypersonic flight within the Earth’s atmosphere without creating a sonic boom.


Thats simply an indication that there was something wrong with guaging its speed or even its existence. Unless some ultry high technology (which would have no purpose what so ever) would be used to prevent hearing a sonic boom, physics dictates there was a sonic boom. No sonic boom, no hypersonic object.

QUOTE

Was it capable of right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs at hypersonic speeds?
Did you even read what I wrote? I was using it as an example of an unconventional craft still made by man, I didnt attempt to say that these UFOs were lunar landers!

QUOTE

You’ve got the mike, so decipher the radar data evidence I posted yesterday for all to see. Give us details as to what that UFO is doing.You’ve got the mike, so decipher the radar data evidence I posted yesterday for all to see. Give us details as to what that UFO is doing.


Sure thing, right after you explain to us how the radar data captured the alien beings inside the craft? Oh, it didnt? Then its not proof that the craft is alien!

QUOTE

Nope. Commercial and military pilots and ground-based witnesses reported structured saucer-shaped flying machines, which had nothing to do with natural phenomena. Besides, the Air Force’s own scientific report of 1969 had already excluded atmospheric phenomena as the cause of the UFO case files in question.
I was speaking in general terms of UFO reports on the whole.

QUOTE

Stellar.....as for you......you take it right to the brink but your extremely careful not to take that final step arent you ?


Hmm?

QUOTE

it almost seems you know we're right youre just afraid to admit it

you seem to agree with everything we say about the craft doing things we "know" human made craft cant do, you just wont admit the tech is alien
Read my posts carefully. I said some of the "craft" do things that *known* human craft cant do.

QUOTE

you state you cant show me an example of a human made plane that can do such things, but claim that isnt as bad as me not being able to show you a little green man........i submit to you it is indeed just as bad....and maybe more so


Huh? I never said anything of the sort... I said that, while I cant show you an example of human craft mimicing those characteristics, that does not disprove the possibility that it is a human craft. If I could show you a human craft that could mimic those flight characteristics, well then... it would be quite pointless in having a super top secret aircraft with the same characteristics, no?

QUOTE

people have seen these craft do maneuvers 10 times better then the SR-71 or the Stealth years before those planes were even developed, and yet that tech has not been admitted to being used by humans to this day.......we have planes being shot down and people being killed with the tech we admit to having......so, if we do have flying saucer tech ahy isnt it being used in battle ? .........what are they waiting for ?
There could be a number of reasons for this, including faults in the technology, the wish to keep it secret until other countries come up with the same sort of tech, etc. That does not eliminate the possibility that they're man made.

QUOTE

like sky said.......if this flying saucer tech has been around since the 50's or before......why am i still flying around in a crappy 747 ? why do we still use Space Shuttles that blow up ?.........if we do have and have had this highly advanced tech then you have no answer.........my case for the tech not being ours is strong and yours for it being ours is weak


It doesnt matter how strong the case is, it doesnt matter whether I have an explanation for why you're flying around in a "crappy" 747 still... what matters is that the case can still be made, therefore it cant be proven that the craft are alien.

Stellar
QUOTE

if one nation has mastered this tech they would rule the world........no modern known about fighter could challenge a saucer not even the Stealth......aside from nuclear tech there is nothing to stop a country from taking over if it had saucer tech
That is horribly wrong. What conquers countries? Planes, or people?

QUOTE

well, you admit the saucer tech exists........you admit the saucers do things we cant explain as a general public (including some personnel trained to explain such things....military pilots and air traffic controllers).......and you provide no evidence that the tech is ours


Just as you provide no evidence that the tech is not ours... Why? Because we're delving into the realm of possibilities... The very fact that no evidence exists to prove that they're human or alien meerly supports my whole point, that its possible that they be either one.

QUOTE

on the contrary i provide evidence that the tech isnt ours........747's take hours to get from coast to coast while saucer tech would take minutes........military jets get shot down........space shuttles blow up..........now you may say all my evidence is circumstantial........and i say enough circumstantial evidence will win you a case
How does that prove that the tech isnt ours?

"747's take hours to get from coast to coast... military jets get shot down... space shuttles blow up... therefore the concord and the SR-71 dont exist"

Hey, same logic... care to show much whats wrong with it?

QUOTE

Up to a minute if not energised by an external source.......Just bear in mind the majority of sightings of these balls of light last way more than a minute.


"which normally has a very short relaxation time."
skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 5 2007, 06:55 PM) [snapback]1530641[/snapback]
*sigh* Your case is not that UFOs exist, but that UFOs are alien craft.


If we didn't have saucer-shaped flying crafts capable of hypersonic flight and right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs in 1952, then we didn't have them, which simply means those flying crafts were not those of mankind.

quote] You can not prove that UFOs are alien craft, whereas I can prove that Pluto is a real object.


Of course it can be proven! After all, present any aircraft today that can mimic the performance figures of those flying crafts during the 1950's.

quote]No it doesnt. It proves that it wasnt an aircraft known to man today.


Well! If it wasn't known to man today, then it couldn't have been that of mankind if mankind was unaware of it.

QUOTE
Perhaps there was some sort of top secret technology available to us then, or perhaps it wasnt an intelligently controled object...
They were intelligently controlled and they have been known to react to radar lock-ons and to other aircraft in the general vincinity.

quote] A better question is, why cant you remain consistant with your figures? One minute its 9000 mph, then its 7000 mph...And please, show me what kind of exotic technology of the 50's was used to clock this object at one of those speeds...
Why?


The 9000 mph figure came from this incident.

QUOTE


B-29 RADAR VISUAL MULTIPLE WITNESS OBSERVATIONS, DEC. 6, 1952

From the plane, they were also able to make visual contact with the object, watching it as a blue-white streak moving fast near the bomber. Shortly after this, there was a repeat with several more objects whizzing past their plane. Crew members watched the UFOs perform maneuvers to avoid hitting the plane. In the end a larger object absorbed the smaller craft and fled at 9.000 miles per hour.

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/coleman52.htm

And, the 7000 mph figure came from these incidents over our nation's capital.

And, the 7000 mph figure came from these incidents over Washington D.C. in 1952. You can go to your local library and pull out microfilm from publications from that time period and read the detailed descriptions of the UFO incidents over Washington D.C. Another publication is LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40.

QUOTE


UFO Incidents Over Washington D.C.

Considering the objects' relative position, just before they vanished, this last would require a speed of from 5,000 to 7,000 m.p.h. At the time, this seemed unbelievable to Barnes and the other controllers. But Captain Pierman later confirmed the objects' tremendous speed.

Another confirmation of the visitors' incredible speed came later that night, from the Washington tower. Operator Joe Zacko had been watching the A.S.R. scope when one of the mystery objects abruptly appeared just west of Andrews Field. Unlike the slower M.E.W., the A.S.R., with its 28-r.p.m. antenna, can track extremely high speeds. As Zacko watched, fascinated, the blips made a bright streak or trail, heading north- northeast toward Riverdale. Then the trail ended as swiftly as it had come.

Howard Cocklin, hastily called over by Zacko, also saw the bright trail. Together they figured the object's speed from its trace.

It had been making two miles per second -7,200 m.p.h.

"It was as if it had descended rapidly, almost vertically," Cocklin told me later. "That would bring it suddenly into the A.S.R. beam area. It seemed to level off for those few seconds, and then abruptly ascend out of the beam again."

http://www.nicap.org/whatradar.htm


Now, you know how the velocity of 7200 mph was determined.
skyeagle409
QUOTE
Excuse me, but no, you dont. Your experience does not permit you access to every single classified project in the world, does it?
No it doesn’t but I know enough to know that some of those UFO were not ours.

QUOTE
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the people responsible for super secret craft such as these (assuming they are creating them) give a damn about all those regulations.


Of course they do! Recently, I provided details of procedures taken before secret aircraft are even rolled out of their hangars. Secret aircraft must abide by flight regulations as any other military aircraft and there is no exception. To further add, we don’t conduct classified test flights within airport control zones without permission either as UFOs have been known to do occasionally. After all, there are prime reasons why ‘Black’ aircraft are classified and we don't fly them in prohibited and within postitive control zones in formation with airliners either, which is what UFOs have been known to do as well.

QUOTE

Sure, with projects like the F-22 and the JSF, and other such projects which can be readily identified as government projects, theres more of a reason for them to follow those regulations. but with exotic technology as this? What's anyone going to do to them?
With classified aircraft there is even more reason to abide to flight regulations. If one crashes then a national security zone is declared for that area. Pilots can be written up for any blatant flight violations regarding classified aircraft.

QUOTE
Catch them? Hah. With what? There have been occasions where the US broke its own laws, this can happen again, when dealing with such projects.


Once again, we do not hover nor parade our secret aircraft in controlled airspace without permission. Such a suggestion would be enough to make UFO debunker, Phil Klass roll over in his grave, yet UFOs have been known to do just that and create flight hazards to commercial and military air traffic.

http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm

QUOTE
So what's your point? They could be flying in from space (deep space? Excuse me, but what kind of radar does NORAD have to be able to track objects that small up to such ranges as to be classified "deep space"?),
NORAD's space surveillance systems can detect an object the size of a baseball thousands of miles in space and the “Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) network of sophisticated telescopes using reflected visible light, track objects as small as one square meter, reflecting only 10% of incident sunlight, in orbits at altitudes from 3,000 to 35,000 kilometers”

QUOTE
yet they could still be man made, or natural phenomena


They cannot be natural because they maneuver in and out of the Earth‘s atmosphere and they are not man-made either.
hazzard
MID about Skyeagles radar "evidence" back on the HOW DID THEY FIND US thread, page 85.

QUOTE
This...

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


...is not evidence.
It is an alleged data set, with nothing to substantiate it's authenticity.

It does indicate some extraordinary, if not impossible movement. It is thus dubious, although not necessarily false (anything's possible...although the explanation may be less-than-forthcoming).


A 1 second 70 degree right turn, with a 22 g velocity acceleration...plus the acelleration from the turn itself...and impossibility for any aerodynamic structure men have built to endure...nor for any human to endure without having some sort of problem. Must've been alien!

1000 FPS (681 SMPH) vertical climb in one second (at the 8 second mark)...then, suspersonic climb rate of over 1200 MPH a couple seconds later (10 second mark)....climbing 2000 feet, and all the while the velocity is reading 560 knots...hmmm. That would imply a massive actual velocity acceleration in order to maintain horizontal velocity (on the order of 12 g's). Amazing stuff.

We continue to see massive vertical acellerations up, and down, and horizontal velocity accelerations of immense scale, and at 18 seconds we see about a -15g diving turn and a 700 MPH vertical velocity from 5000 feet...right into the ground...woops.

Shock waves, sonic booms, immense crater anyone?

Ought to be some records of all this.
At any rate, this supposed data set proves little, as it is unidentified and unsubstantiated.


There is no way to conclude anything about this data.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 5 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]1530642[/snapback]
No? We didnt? How do you know? When dealing with such extraordinary explanations such as "they're alien craft", why is it so much less possible for the equally extraordinary explanation "they're ultra top secret human craft" to be true?


Once again, they are not secret aircraft. UFOs have been flying over more than 100 nations and you can best-believe they were not secret aircraft of the United States, especially since the UFO enigma is centuries-old. The cost of flying a single SR-71 mission over North Korea was in the tens of millions of dollars and the SR-71 was already well-known around the globe but to suggest that we hover and conduct test flights of our valuable classified assets over more than 100 nations for test flight purposes in not correct by any means.

QUOTE
Thats simply an indication that there was something wrong with guaging its speed or even its existence. Unless some ultry high technology (which would have no purpose what so ever) would be used to prevent hearing a sonic boom, physics dictates there was a sonic boom. No sonic boom, no hypersonic object.
Now, for the rest of the story.

QUOTE


"In reality, there is no machine made by man either an airplane or a missile that is capable of such performance. Specifically, flying at the speed of sound without making a sonic boom.”

When the pilots first locked on the object, it was at 7000 ft. Within seconds it climbed to 10,000 ft. then, incredibly, plummeted to 500' in only 5 seconds. At the same time, the object accelerated to 990 knots, more than 1000 mph, 1 1/2 times the speed of sound. That combination of acceleration and descent would have been fatal to a human pilot.

Colonel W.J.L. De Brouwer

"We measured some exceptional accelerations which cannot be related to conventional aircraft . . . that is clear. . . . The data on all this performances which were registered during the lock-ons on the radar, was totally outside of the normal performance envelope of any airplane."

Even though the craft exceeded the speed of sound, remarkably, there was no sonic boom on the ground.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(hazzard @ Feb 5 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1530809[/snapback]
MID about Skyeagles radar "evidence" back on the HOW DID THEY FIND US thread, page 85.


The statment of Colonel De Brouwer that I provided above pretty much sums it up on the data I posted and for which he is referring too.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(Stellar @ Feb 5 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1530646[/snapback]
if one nation has mastered this tech they would rule the world........no modern known about fighter could challenge a saucer not even the Stealth..."


That is correct. Here's an account of an encounter between an F-86 and a saucer-shaped UFO taken from the a science book of the Air Force Academy.

QUOTE


INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE - VOLUME II
CHAPTER ***III
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - USAF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY


“About ten o'clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86's were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude.”

“ The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer. He failed, and the UFO pulled away rapidly, vanishing in the distance.”



QUOTE
........747's take hours to get from coast to coast while saucer tech would take minutes........military jets get shot down........space shuttles blow up..........now you may say all my evidence is circumstantial........and i say enough circumstantial evidence will win you a case How does that prove that the tech isnt ours?
Because there is nothing in the science books of mankind in that respect and we are still flying around using jet engines as primary propulsion systems, however, there's information in this publication relating to UFOs and their propulsion systems.

QUOTE

Fire Fighters UFO Manual (UFO)
Subject: Firefighters FEMA UFO training manual


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UFO Hazards

The two principal hazards noted with relation to UFOs have been attributed to powerful electrical fields which they can project in a general or localized area and the psychological effects they have produced on the general populace or individual contacts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force Field Impact

The disruption of air and ground travel has often been reported in the presence of UFOs. The ignition systems of auto and aircraft engines have apparently been affected by energized force fields to such an extent as to stop their operation; the headlights and radios have also ceased to function. Here are a couple of examples. In Buenos Aires, on March 29, 1978, "A strange force shut off their engine and headlights of their Citroen CG, lifted it 15 feet off the road, then set it down a minute later and 75 miles to the north." The driver had noticed a yellow and violet light shining in his rear view mirror while driving the last leg of a long stock car race, and he realized that it was approaching too fast to be a competitor. A month later a Colombian bank manager and a navy officer had their car headlights go off when buzzed by a UFO, with the navy man suffering temporary paralysis. Other South American countries in which similar actions were reported around that time included Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay.(61)

These effects have also been noted to influence the controls and instruments of aircraft, e.g., the pilot of a Piper PH-24 reported that his controls became inoperable when he was approached by three disk-shaped objects, 10 to 12 feet in diameter, over Mexico City on May 3,1975.(62) Similar cases have been reported by military pilots, illustrated by the classic case of the near mid-air collision of an army helicopter with a UFO on October 18, 1973, over Ohio, where not only did both the UHF and VHF radio wave- lengths go dead temporarily, but the downward movement of the helicopter with its four occupants was levitated upward by a green beam from the UFO in time to prevent its crash into the ground.(63)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communications Disruption

In addition to the impedance of radio transmissions and reception, such as that described in the preceding incident, telephone interference has occurred, illustrated by the chagrin of President Lyndon Johnson in having his conversation from the Texas White House cut off while talking to assistants in Washington, D.C.(64) The ability to render inoperable all electronic forms of communications, including those that control the launching of defense weapons systems, has been considered within the range of UFO capability. Whether this could extend to the erasing of recorded computer data such as bank records, personnel data, FBI, CIA, and NSA files, along with critical information of every kind, is not beyond the realm of possibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional Power Blackouts

It has long been suspected that UFOs have the capability of blacking out a city, state, or many states by exerting a force field sufficient to overload the circuits of public and private utility installations. "Few things are more disturbing than to be plunged into pitch darkness without warning; it is dangerous for masses of people. It paralyzes cities, blocks highways, stops trains, leaves elevators suspended between floors. In general it simply plays hell with the modern way of life."(65) You would think that the power companies would have achieved sufficient reliability in their high tech systems that a mass failure such as that which blacked out New York and New England in 1965 would never happen--but it did. Although, as we have mentioned before, it was known that UFO activity was associated with disturbances with compasses. instruments, ignition systems, radios, etc., it was inconceivable that it could also interfere with generation and distribution of electrical power. Such a connection was also inferred in November 1953, when a glowing red object went over a residential area of New Haven, Connecticut, causing lights to dim out on both sides of the object's path and then come on when it went out of sight.

Power failures were also reported in association with UFOs in Brazil in 1957 to l959~ Rome, Italy, in 1958; and Mexico in 1965. Likewise, in Uberlandia, where the power station operators promptly closed the circuits when the UFO apparently caused them to open, it did no good, and they were unable to restore the power until the UFO departed.

"The Granddaddy of all blackouts to date was the stygian blanket that fell over 30 million people in the northeastern corner of the U.S. during the early evening rush hour period on November 9, 1965."(66) Relay services that were supposed to automatically transfer the load in case of failure in one area to an alternate source malfunctioned. Military communications relying on public power without alternate backup systems also failed, but communications were operable to make a quick public announcement that there was no military emergency. Though it was largely over by the next morning, the official explanation about a malfunctioning small device in a Canadian hydroelectric generating plant never accounted for the failure of millions of dollars worth of electronic devices to shift the load when the breakdown occurred.

http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/firefighters.htm


About those blackouts. Note what happened here as far as blackouts attributed to a UFO.

QUOTE
"The pilot of the plane had to accomplish a desperate escape maneuver not to collide with an unidentified flying object (UFO)" said several members of the Argentine military air forces. These testimonies were confirmed by Major Jorge Oviedo himself who "also saw a UFO" and who stated that "a power failure occurred at the same time in the city and all recording and measure apparatus at the airport were jammed". Several inhabitants claimed they saw the UFO just before the power failure.

As I was almost landing, the runway lights and those of the airport shut off at once. I therefore had to apply full throttle to climb again to 3 000 feet, tempting to perform an escape maneuver, but always accompanied by the UFO, which eventually climbed at a supernatural speed. I did not believe my eyes and I was very anxious, as were my fellow crew members " added Polanco who stated that " the UFO was not moving in accordance with known laws of nature and physics ".

On August 11, 1995, a school teacher and a fireman of the City of Cutral Co, located 900 km S-W of Buenos Aires, claimed that they saw and even taped a UFO that was "flying" at a very low altitude. According to Luis Luna, the school teacher, a power failure occurred while the phenomenon passed over town.

http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm
rapid7

QUOTE(hazzard @ Feb 5 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1530809[/snapback]
MID about Skyeagles radar "evidence" back on the HOW DID THEY FIND US thread, page 85.


It's from The 1990 Belgium Black triangle Sightings case. The source is the Belgium military- they held a press conference. Nice of them to be so open.

linked-image linked-image
When the pilots first locked on the object, it was at 7000 ft. Within seconds it climbed to 10,000 ft. then, incredibly, plummeted to 500' in only 5 seconds. At the same time, the object accelerated to 990 knots, more than 1000 mph, 1 1/2 times the speed of sound. That combination of acceleration and descent would have been fatal to a human pilot.

A Statement from Colonel W.J.L. De Brouwer:

"We measured some exceptional accelerations which cannot be related to conventional aircraft . . . that is clear. . . . The data on all this performances which were registered during the lock-ons on the radar, was totally outside of the normal performance envelope of any airplane."
Another "oddity"

Even though the craft exceeded the speed of sound, remarkably, there was no sonic boom on the ground.

"The triangle had a large light on top of it and the light circled around it while the triangle remained suspended in the air."
morrison1976
QUOTE
MID about Skyeagles radar "evidence" back on the HOW DID THEY FIND US thread, page 85.


Is that the same MID that told me that globel warming was not being caused by humans? Anyone read or watched the news latley!!!!!!!!!! lol

Some people just have to de-bunk everything!
Hazzard!! when sky was talking about the radar evidence, you did not understand. When MID was giving his opinions, you most prob still did not understand, but because it came from MID, you instantly think that the evidence has been de-bunked, and thats the sad thing today when it comes to the ufo subject. People come to conclusions on things they know nothing about. A bit like MID with globel warming. Even though on the news the last couple of days, they have said that Globel warming( and these are scientists ) is caused by humans, but thats another thread original.gif
et's daddy
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Feb 5 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]1530782[/snapback]
Secret aircraft must abide by flight regulations as any other military aircraft and there is no exception.


that is one point i dont agree with......certain factions of our government do anything they want and damn the consequences

they have never admitted Area 51 even exists........they gave LSD to unwitting people........the list goes on and on......so dont try and claim they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else

just how do they log a flight plan ? ................they call the local airports and tell them to ignore the SR-71 shaped blips on the radar screen ?


QUOTE
yet UFOs have been known to do just that and create flight hazards to commercial and military air traffic.

this however i see as seriously helping the case for the UFO's not being our tech.......UFO's have been reported several times to have buzzed and basically played games with commercial airliners.......i cant understand how anyone can think for a second government pilots would be so careless........isnt that proof enough that atleast some of the UFO craft arent ours ?




one other thing i would like to add.........i think some here are making an assumption that shouldnt be made........just like skeptics want to remind us that UFO doesnt mean alien made.....i would like to remind everyone alien made doesnt mean extraterrestrial........the UFOs can be alien made and still from earth
Lilly
QUOTE(et @ Feb 6 2007, 12:54 AM) [snapback]1531127[/snapback]
...one other thing i would like to add.........i think some here are making an assumption that shouldnt be made........just like skeptics want to remind us that UFO doesnt mean alien made.....i would like to remind everyone alien made doesnt mean extraterrestrial........the UFOs can be alien made and still from earth


Uh? Ok, I'll ask; what does this then indicate? Do you mean that ETs are based here on Earth making these UFOs (as in UFOs=ET craft)? Or, do you mean that humans have somehow obtained UFOs (or the technology to build UFOs) from ET? Or, are you saying something else that I'm not understanding properly?
hazzard
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Feb 6 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]1531077[/snapback]
Is that the same MID that told me that globel warming was not being caused by humans? Anyone read or watched the news latley!!!!!!!!!! lol


Are you saying that his view on GW would automatically make him wrong about the moon hoax, ET on Earth and everything else as well. rolleyes.gif

Lets wait for his reply, no point in speculating at this time.
skyeagle409
QUOTE(et @ Feb 6 2007, 12:54 AM) [snapback]1531127[/snapback]
that is one point i dont agree with......certain factions of our government do anything they want and damn the consequences...the list goes on and on......so dont try and claim they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else


When it comes to our valuable classified aerial assets, then that is another story. Also, the UFO phenomena is not limited to the USA alone and in fact, is a phenomena in over 100 nations around the globe and UFOs have been recorded throughout the centuries. The Air Force expends great effort just to hide their classified aircraft from the eyes of their own troops stationed on secret bases if they don't have the proper security clearances so I ask the skeptics as to why would the Air Force blatantly fly their classified aircraft through controlled airspace above LAX or next to an airliner in positive controlled airspace or hover them above cities in full view of the local population where it can be photograhed and video taped when certain security procedures must be followed even before the hangar doors are open?

QUOTE

just how do they log a flight plan ? ................they call the local airports and tell them to ignore the SR-71 shaped blips on the radar screen ?
They use their own flight plans, which do not conflict with FAA flight regulations. Sensors planted in the Southern California desert were detecting a pressure signature of a strange high speed aircraft, a signature which was not that of the SR-71 and radar controllers were reporting unknown high speed objects that were not the SR-71.

QUOTE
this however i see as seriously helping the case for the UFO's not being our tech.......UFO's have been reported several times to have buzzed and basically played games with commercial airliners.......i cant understand how anyone can think for a second government pilots would be so careless........isnt that proof enough that atleast some of the UFO craft arent ours ?


Yes! Imagine the newspaper headlines if a classified aircraft accidently collides with an airliner or a passenger runs off some zoomed photographs of a classified aircraft that is suppose to be a secret. How much would the media folks offer for photos of a top secret aircraft flying next an airliner? What would happen if a secret aircraft was hovering over a city, as UFOs have been known to do, and the secret aircraft malfunctioned and makes an emergency landing within the city or worse, crashes and causes widespread damage and casualites? So much for the classified nature of that former secret aircraft and I am sure that those responsible would have their military careers cut short as a result simply because now, our national securtiy assets are spread all over a nonsecured area and now the government must go throught the trouble of declaring a national security zone around the crash site, not to mention that now, classified components of the former secret aircraft are now in the hands of those without proper security clearances. There are places where classified test flights are conducted and prohibited and airport controlled airspaces are not any of them. Also, UFOs have been known to exceed established FAA speed limits below 10,000 feet without permission from ground controllers.

QUOTE
one other thing i would like to add.........i think some here are making an assumption that shouldnt be made........just like skeptics want to remind us that UFO doesnt mean alien made.....i would like to remind everyone alien made doesnt mean extraterrestrial........the UFOs can be alien made and still from earth


UFOs have been observed raising from the ocean waves around the globe and that has been the case for centuries as well.
hazzard
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Feb 6 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]1531077[/snapback]
Hazzard!! when sky was talking about the radar evidence, you did not understand.


True, and neither did you when you only saw the numbers.

QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Feb 6 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]1531077[/snapback]
When MID was giving his opinions, you most prob still did not understand, but because it came from MID, you instantly think that the evidence has been de-bunked, and thats the sad thing today when it comes to the ufo subject.


Wrong! I got it allright, but it was the first time that I heard an explanation FOR THOSE NUMBERS that skyeagle loves to throw around as proof of aliens on Earth. No one bothered to post Colonel W.J.L. De Brouwers story, Sky just posted the numbers, that was it.


QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Feb 6 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]1531077[/snapback]
People come to conclusions on things they know nothing about.


I couldnt agree more.
U.F.O.Abduction.Case
Yes I can explain..THE UNEXPLAINED... What im really am is a child like kid on myspace.com/ericc1980 who was born ON time in the 80's with a gene manipulation over the years on reasearch by U.F.O'S...IM 1 in a billion.. with a 6th sense, then how do you figure born On 1980 aligned with the leo constellation and my pics on http://www.myspace.com/ericc1980 with a child face at 30 years old? genes and dreams?
The Silver Thong
QUOTE(U.F.O.Abduction.Case @ Feb 6 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]1532121[/snapback]
Yes I can explain..THE UNEXPLAINED... What im really am is a child like kid on myspace.com/ericc1980 who was born ON time in the 80's with a gene manipulation over the years on reasearch by U.F.O'S...IM 1 in a billion.. with a 6th sense, then how do you figure born On 1980 aligned with the leo constellation and my pics on http://www.myspace.com/ericc1980 with a child face at 30 years old? genes and dreams?


Ummm ok rofl.gif I think your sixth sence is messing up because you failed to see how people will not believe a word of this. You also failed to see that your math is wrong, if you were born in the 80's how can you be in your 30's ? Have to say you did give me a good laugh, thx.

Ok I just looked at your myspace and see your 26 yrs old hmmmm

This post actualy kinda hurt my head, I can't make heads or tails of this wacko.gif
et's daddy
QUOTE(Lilly @ Feb 6 2007, 08:23 AM) [snapback]1531582[/snapback]
Uh? Ok, I'll ask; what does this then indicate? Do you mean that ETs are based here on Earth making these UFOs (as in UFOs=ET craft)? Or, do you mean that humans have somehow obtained UFOs (or the technology to build UFOs) from ET? Or, are you saying something else that I'm not understanding properly?

all i was saying was that most everyone is only using the word extraterrestrial to explain those flying these UFO's if they arent man-made

as far as i know extraterrestrial means not of this earth

my point is, the UFO's may not be made by humans and still of this earth.......im not promoting that theory, just saying i think it is possible

like it has been stated here already, UFO's have been see going in and out of the water......this planet has alot of water to hide alot of UFO's

just possible is all wink2.gif

and id still like to hear a skeptic explain how these that buzz commercial airliners are controlled be the US government
Stellar
QUOTE

If we didn't have saucer-shaped flying crafts capable of hypersonic flight and right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs in 1952, then we didn't have them, which simply means those flying crafts were not those of mankind.
Indeed... *if* we did not have them. Can you prove to me that it can in no way be a natural, yet unexplained phenomena and prove to me aswell that it couldnt have been a human craft?

QUOTE

Of course it can be proven! After all, present any aircraft today that can mimic the performance figures of those flying crafts during the 1950's.


Excuse me, but there's 2 problems with that.

1. That doesnt account for natural phenomena.
2. Just because we dont know of any modern aircraft that can mimic that performance does not prove that we dont have any aircraft that can mimic that performance.

QUOTE

Well! If it wasn't known to man today, then it couldn't have been that of mankind if mankind was unaware of it.