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. IQUOTE
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.