It is clearly evident that you are out-of-touch with reality in regards to UFOs. One of the professors, an expert on radar technology and who teaches at a military institution in Belgium, came to the conclusion that the Belgian UFO was an extraterrestrial flying object based on the radar data and he made his comment during a video interview so there was no question about what he had said.

I've got the data and the data alone is sufficient.

I might add that science has been called upon in the past to verify many UFO case files as reported. I just thought that you would know that.

I might add once again, that science has been called upon to verify many UFO cases files as reported.

No, radar is evidence, it does not provide proof of anything. That professor, was an idiot and is shunned by his peers for not understanding that.

For instance, Lets say I take a video of an ant walking along on a sidewalk. Now I zoom way in so you cannot see what this is. I now have evidence of a black dot that is moving, I can't say forsure what the black dot, so I will conclude its extraterrestrial. If you can't see the flaw in that logic I have nothing else to say to you.

So, science could not study a craft or a body, science can make the conclusion that since something is unexplained its extraterrestrial.

I appreciate your blinded dogma sky, but you cannot obviously tell the difference between proof and evidence. You dont understand why not understanding does not mean your hypothesis is correct. I am done with this argument now, but I will take away a new respect for the extremely low level of scientific education on the part of most Americans. When an American adult does not know the difference between proof and evidence I can only blame the system. At least you have further convinced me, that our education policy is in dire straights and needs some serious revision.

Now, you are attacking one of your fellow scientist because he came to his conclusion based on the radar data evidence, the same evidence the Belgian Air Force used to dismiss all conventional aircraft and natural phenomena as that UFO.



But, I am not talking "dots" in regards to UFOs. The data spells it out loud and clear the UFOs are not conventional aircraft of mankind, simply because no aircraft of mankind is capable of such performance levels and the fact that mankind has not solved the riddle of the sonic boom, is yet another clear indication that the hypersonic UFO are not ours.

You can review the latest FAA regulations to make a determination that the sonic boom problem is still alive and well and has yet to be solved, but the owners of those UFOs it seems, have already solved that problem. That fact can be ascertained by the hypersonic velocities of UFOs within earth's atmosphe, yet they produced no sonic booms.

Give me a physical piece of Pluto to study or prove that it exist. If not, then you have to accept that we have that same kind of proof of UFO reality as we have on Pluto.

It is just a matter of invoking the 'process of elimination' to eliminate flying objects of mankind. In other words, are our flying objects capable of the kind of performance levels that real UFOs are known for? If not, then those UFOs are not ours by that very fact.

I'm not assuming anything, your assuming that I'm making assumptions!

Here is Pluto's position, month-by-month, for all of 2007, courtesy of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand :



Feel free to grab any instruments you'd care to use and go out and study it. You now know exactly where to find it on any night of the year. Now, please provide me with the current location of an extraterrestrial spacecraft so that I may conduct my own study. Can't do it? Then, no, I don't accept that "we have the same kind of proof of UFO reality as we have on Pluto."

Edit: Corrected typo.

Ill attack anyone who cannot tell the difference between proof and evidence. I know your not talking dots, its an example, yet another you are not able to grasp because your blind dogma. How do you know UFOs are not humans from the future?



Again, clearly showing your lack of scientific knowledge. You are assuming that we know Pluto exists only because we can see it visualize. This is not the case, you can mathematically prove Pluto is there by observations of light and gravity. Furthermore you can choose to access these observations at any time, not only when it is convenient to support your argument, as Pericynthion has so nicely pointed out.


So again

I appreciate your blinded dogma sky, but you cannot obviously tell the difference between proof and evidence. You dont understand why not understanding does not mean your hypothesis is correct. I am done with this argument now, but I will take away a new respect for the extremely low level of scientific education on the part of most Americans. When an American adult does not know the difference between proof and evidence I can only blame the system. At least you have further convinced me, that our education policy is in dire straights and needs some serious revision.

edit: typo

if ur claiming some cases are unexplained, its close-minded to jump to the conclusion the object must be of an intelligence. their are so many natural explinations we dont know

Oh dear!

That doesn't fly because I can't even give you the current location in the sky of the popular Veri-EZ or a BD-5 homebuilt aircraft but they exist!



That still that doesn't fly either because you don't have a physical piece of Pluto in your garage and I don't have a physical piece of a flying sauce in mine, so now, where does that leave us? You posted data on Pluto, so now, I am going to post data on this UFO.







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

And, I can tie that data to this radar image that proves the existence of that UFO and the data depicts an artificial flying vehicle that reacted to the aircraft's lock-on attempts. To further add, that data excludes natural phenomena, celestrial bodies and conventional aircraft as well.



At least, we have radar confirmation from multiple and dissimilar ground-based and airborne units that proves the existence of that UFO.

Now what?? I ask of you these questions;

* Has Pluto been tracked on ground-based radars?

* Has Pluto been tracked on airborne radar?

* Has Pluto been tracked on ELINT systems?

* Has Pluto been tracked on radar/camera tracking systems?

* Has Pluto flown next to airliners in full violation of FAA regulations?

* Has Pluto left behind physical trace evidence at landing sites?

* Has Pluto been tracked by space surveillance satellites?


If no to any of those quesitons, then what can I say?

I can say yes to each on those questions in regards to UFOs and in many cases, multiple ground-based and airborne systems in different locations have tracked and identified the same UFOs, which were also corroborated by independent eyewitnesses visual accounts in aircraft and on the ground.

Multiple sources that corroborate one another on the existence of UFOs that we don't have on Pluto.

After all, the guy is a professor and an expert in the field of radar technology and you attacked him for dismissing all aircraft of mankind and said that the UFO was that of ET. Well, even the Belgian Air Force had said that ET cannot be excluded either.



I knew what you were talking about but it doesn't fly. UFOs can do what no object of mankind can do and it just a matter of calling upon the 'process of elimination' to weed out mankind's projects.



How do you know otherwise? Mankind of the future would have the intelligence to know that changing the past could result in their non-existence, and I have a further problem with time travel. That means I could go back to different dates in the past and abduct 50 entites of myself. Now, what happens if I killed myself 50 times. What am I going to be charged with? 50 counts of murder? What if I killed my grandparents before my parents were born, or what happens to me if I kill my parents before I was born? There's a lot to think about before bringing in humans from the future. and I am sure they would not take that chance if it were possible.



Well, it is not my fault and I take no blame for the comments of scientist and engineers, who were tracking fying saucers with their tracking instruments, that the flying saucers they were tracking were those of ET!

Well there are around 35 known locations on Earth where UAP can be observed on nearly a daily basis, so I guess Skyeagle is correct in saying that "we have the same kind of proof of UFO reality as we have on Pluto."

In that case you can also feel free to grab any instruments you'd care to use and go out and study UAP.

Not for the UFOs in question! Natural phenomena do not react to radar lock-ons in the manner depicted in 1990. It is obvious that this incident had nothing to do with natural phenomena.


BARILOCHE UFO

SAN CARLOS DE BARILOCHE 02/08 (AFP) = On Monday morning, around ten eye-witnesses reported that, moving at high velocity and defying all known laws of physics, a white flying saucer perturbed the air traffic at the San Carlos de Bariloche airport, located 1 800 km S-W of Buenos-Aires, during 15 minutes on Monday to Tuesday night.

The observation stated on Monday at 23:30 GMT (Tuesday 01H30 HB) while Aérolinas Argentinas flight 674, en route from Buenos Aires with 102 passengers and 3 crew members was on final approach to land on the runway of Bariloche airport, an in vogue winter resort located on the first slopes of the Andes.

"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.

"We were 15 minutes away from landing at Bariloche. The local air traffic controller gave us clearance for initiating the instrument landing procedure. We came down from level 120 (i.e. 12,000 feet) to level 30 (i.e. 3,000 feet; around 1,000 meters) said pilot Jorge Polanco.

"As I was initiating final descent, I saw suddenly a white light in front of the plane, moving at high speed directly towards us before stopping instantly around 100 meters away. When I re-initiated the approach procedure, the object turned in a strange way to accompany our descent turn and kept a trajectory parallel to that of the plane, still 100 meters away " said the pilot.

" My plane was working properly, but after a while, the color of the saucer (the size of which was comparable to that of a liner), shifted. Two green lights at the extremities and a slowly flashing orange one at the center appeared ", he added.

" 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 ".

What?

Yeah, you should read about that, the Hessdalen Valley, Norway is one such place that has attracted Scientific interest for over 20 years now.

Link us up shaman! I've never heard of it! Make a new topic!

Here's a few links to get ya started.

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/hessdalen.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000icph.rept.....T

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000NIDS..rept....T

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ESASP.496..285A



There is already a thread or two on UM about Hessdalen. Here's one.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...c=77096&hl=

That's wonderful. I think I have some free time on August 9. Please tell me exactly where a UAP will be on that day at say, 8 pm U.S. Central Daylight Time. I'll need precise trajectory and timing information so that I can set up my observations and confirm your predictions. I'll also need a full set of expected physical characteristics of the object (size, shape, composition, etc.) so that, again, I might confirm your numbers.

I can do that with Pluto. You can't do that with a UAP/UFO. If you could, it wouldn't be "unidentified" anymore. Pluto is an extremely well-understood object whose position in space is precisely known and whose general physical characteristics can be confirmed by anyone with the proper instruments. The New Horizons spacecraft won't arrive at Pluto until 2015, and yet the scientists and engineers working on the program are already planning out the full set of observations because they know exactly where Pluto and its moons will be 8 years from now.

Sure, there are unexplained, unpredictable phenomena out there that are worth investigating. I'm not denying that at all. To claim, though, that a few charts generated from a video of the pilot's display of an F-16 radar proves the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft as well as science has proven the existence of Pluto is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

The .pdf file is very interesting, and as an aside, the Doppler info kind of blows Sky's cut-and-paste radar data out of the water. Determining that type of velocity while observing a stationary light is pretty damn cool.



OK Pery, point taken, but check out that .pdf file. It's actually interesting. Great find shaman. That UM link is so short, I should necro-post it! It deserved more attention than it was given!

You know I don't recall making 'predictions' or offering you any 'numbers'.

Of course if you have free time on the 9th, then I'd advise you to go to Hessdalen, like other Scientists do, and take your instruments and study the UAP that reoccure there.






Your obfuscating the point here, that both UAP and Pluto are physical objects that we can observe with instrumentation even though we can not bring them into "the lab" and study them in that manner.








And this is the point, UAP, are not well understood, but like Pluto anyone with instruments can go out and observe UAP. I've already told you exactly where you can go to do this. UAP do not have Fixed positions in the sky, but are no less real than anything else. You don't consider that Pluto (w/ a Fixed position) is more real than say a Bolide (w/ no Fixed position) do you?





Exactly, just like we know UAP have been seen in Hessdalen for over 120 years, and are almost certainly not going anywhere as far as we can tell.




That's clearly not something I've said, or implied.

Sky, you can post, copy and paste what ever you like, all day and all night, if it didt make a dent over at BAUT or over here at UM with the science crew by now, it never will.

Vacation, please, take one.

Apparently, there are those within the Air Force and radar experts who won't agree with your assessment. Even the lead F-16 pilot stated in a video interview that the UFO was not weather-related, so are you going to argue with an experienced F-16 pilot?



We can't track Pluto with ELINT systems, ground-base and airborne radar and DSP satellites, but we can do so with UFOs/UAPs

As I've said before on a number of occasions, if we didn't have the technology to produce that kind of vehicle with the advanced technology as demonstrated over Belgian over a period of months, then common sense would simply dictate that if we didn't have the technology to begin with, then the technology was not ours for that very reason. Nothing difficult to understand there, and why the Air Force stated basically in its August 1952 report, that if flying saucers maneuver in the manner as reported, then the flying saucers are not ours.

U.S. Air Force Intelligence Report On UFO Maneuvers
Major Dewey Fournet, USAF

That should also give some insight as to why scientist and engineers at White Sands, New Mexico and in Minnesota have said that the flying saucers they have been tracking were extraterrestrial. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand because if mankind didn't have the technology, then the technology demonstrated in the skies around the world for centuries could not have been the technology of mankind and putting it in perspective, if I don't own a red truck, then obviously, the red truck parked in front of my home can't be mine. Think about it!

Now, you wouldn't want to argue with scientist and engineers who have documented their findings for all to see, would you?

Why is "copy and paste" such a big issue with skeptics?

After all, the documents are authentic and I am sure you wouldn't want me to type each word myself from all of those documents! About some of those so-called scientist, there are scientist who had clinged to their evidence before 1994, that a weather balloon was involved in the Roswell incident. I like to bring that up from time to time because it shows that some of those so-called scientist were too narrow-minded to call themselves real scientist. They disregarded my evidence and laughed and laughed at my evidence, that is, until the U.S. Air Force admitted in 1994 that no weather balloon was involved after all.

Do I have to tell you who got the last laugh? After the Air Force turned the tables on the so-called scientist in 1994, the Air Force duped the so-called scientist again on a Project Mogul balloon flight that never was. What is their current evidence? I thought real scientist had to do some thinking first, but it is eviden that the so-called scientist rather rely on those whose business is to distort the facts. I would like to ask the so-called scientist what they think of the Air Force's 1997 Roswell Report and what they think of the Air Force's announcement that alien bodies people saw in 1947 were test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s.

Looking at past history, the so-called scientist would most likely agree with the Air Force's 1997 report because they are too lazy to do their homework and if 1994 wasn't a wake-up call, then you know the old saying:

Those who fail to learn from the past, are doomed to relive it in the future.

To sum it up, there are those who think they are scientist, but failing to do their homework, they have given real scientist a bad name. The following has brought a bad name to scientist in regards to the UFO enigma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

SCIENCE IN DEFAULT: 22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS
James E. McDonald, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
University of Arizona, Tucson

(Material presented at the Symposium on UFOs,
134th Meeting, AAAS, Boston, Dec, 27, 1969)

Part 1 of 2 Parts

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE,
134th MEETING

Subject:
Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

Author:
James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

Address:
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721

Program:
General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects Convention

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Flying Saucer Fiasco
Look Magazine, May, 14, 1968
By John G. Fuller

The extraordinary story of the half-million-dollar "trick" to make Americans believe the Condon committee was conducting an objective investigation

That a panel of the National Academy of Sciences could endorse this study is to me disturbing. I find no evidence that the Academy panel did any independent checking of its own; and none of that 11-man panel had any significant prior investigative experience in this area, to my knowledge. I believe that this sort of Academy endorsement must be criticized; it hurts science in the long run, and I fear that this particular instance will ultimately prove an embarrassment to the National Academy of Sciences. The Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly negative influence on clarification of the long-standing UFO problem; so much, in fact, that it seems almost pointless to now call for new and more extensive UFO investigations. Yet the latter are precisely what are needed to bring out into full light of scientific inquiry a phenomenon that could well constitute one of the greatest scientific problems of our times.

http://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/fiasco.html

Their experimental calculations and data are riddled with errors. Its rather humiliating that someone holding a Ph.D should make such simplistic mistakes, assumptions and errors.

I took the liberty to read their official reports, which by the way are not published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. This kind of scientific work only hurts evidence for UFOs, at least to real funders and scientists. Also Independent sources are not the only ones perturbed by the lack of method to this "scientific study". A large number of members have left the team due to disputes over assumptions made and reporting of erroneous evidence as factual evidence. It turns out at one instance they attempt to pass off blatantly obvious car lights as "unexplained lights seen off at a distance."

One of the scientific advisers wrote a rebuttal with supporting data tearing their releases apart. Find it here

I think, yet another case of belief-blinded-dogma shrouding sound judgment and collection of data.

Also, this most "scientific" report draws these conclusions (your report not the rebuttal)

So, I guess you might say that this pilot was actually chasing a weather balloon.





And, using their scientific logical thinking, etc, the Air Force was actually ordering its pilots to shoot down weather balloons.

Whelp you got me there sky, I guess that pilot was chasing a flying saucer, how could I have been so dumb as to not see it.

I am trying to figure out what made the Air Force think that the flying saucers would understand orders from earthlings to land.

Again you prove that you don't know what your talking about. Matteo Leone, who wrote the 'rebuttal' you mention, was part of the observation team on the night in question. He was not rebutting the Hessdalen Phenomena, but one observation discussed in the "Physics" Teams' Paper to which he himself was present and observing through a telescope. Leone clearly praises the efforts of the "engineering" Team from the same expedition.

Leone writes, "As discussed above, some allegedly anomalous lights reported in the Hessdalen area turn out to be
due to conventional car headlights. This does not mean that the whole set of Hessdalen sightings about
unidentified lights are explainable in this way. On the contrary, this is to say that the car headlights can
be a source of deception. The EMBLA 2002 optical survey mission proves that even scientific
investigators are not exempt from this mistake." (emphasis Leone's)

Leone goes on to say, "the luminous phenomena observed in the Hessdalen valley deserve
further attention".

Hey, lost, let's back up for a minute here. I don't think I made my point very clearly. I originally posted the Pluto data to counter Sky's assertion that we have as much data to support the existence of UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft as we do to support the existence of Pluto. I strongly disagree with that assertion. You then posted that you agreed with Sky:




Sky is most definitely talking about extraterrestrial spacecraft. Do you really agree with his assessment? Now, I understand your position on UAP like the Hessdalen Phenomenon and I'd agree with you that it's interesting and certainly worth investigating. I still wouldn't put that type of phenomenon in the same category with Pluto, though.

In my last post to you, I was only trying to point out the difference between a known, well-defined object like Pluto and a vaguely-defined, not-well-understood phenomenon like the Hessdalen lights. I can grab a telescope at any time, point it at Pluto's precisely-defined location in space, and know that I will see it and that it will have measureable properties which match an extensive scientific record. We understand Pluto well enough that we can send a spacecraft there and know 9 years ahead of time exactly where Pluto and it's moons will be when that spacecraft arrives. We know this with such precision that we can pre-plan all of the scientific observations we'll conduct during the relatively quick flyby. Now compare that to this description of current state of knowledge of the Hessdalen Phenomena, written by one of the researchers:



All I'm saying here, lost, is that you can't currently put UAP in the same scientific category with Pluto. Pluto is very well defined and testable by anyone with the proper equipment anywhere in the world at any time. UAP, as you mention above, are not well understood. Maybe one day they will be.

Regards,

Pericynthion

Only certain UFOs, not all, and there is a very good reason as to why.

I am not the only pilot claiming that some UFOs are not ours. You can find other pilots, military and commercial, who have encounter these things firsthand in the skies and they will tell you what I have been saying all along. We are not talking just lights in the sky, we are talking artificial, structured flying objects that are definitely under intellligent control, and have nothing to do with secret aircraft nor natural phenomena at all and the specifics of their performance characteristics exclude aircraft, secret or otherwise.

There are places where classified aircraft operate, Space Use Airspace (SUA) and other areas, but they are not allowed to operate within certain areas without perimission, yet UFOs continue to violate numerous FAA regulaions on a regular basis and fly into areas where classified aircraft are not allowed and that is why I have been stating for years that these things have nothing to do with classified aircraft in regards to the UFO case files in question. The manner and the areas where these UFOs operate is ***NOT*** the way we do business with our valuable classified assets.

In regards to what has been brought up in science by others, the data is very clear and can be used as evidence despite what other have said, and to put it in perspective, throw a steel ball at a brick wall and note the sound. Next, throw a sponge at the wall and note the sound. What some are suggesting is, when I hit the wall with the steel ball, a sponge can make the same sound, and that just tells me that they do not understand of what the data reveals about UFOs.

Well, I have seen skyeagle's posts not only on UM, but also at least three other well known Forums. I've also seen sky make this assertion many times. It's certainly not something I'd argue. That being said, sky's argument here deals with physical evidence. He said nothing about "UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft", he said "Give me a physical piece of Pluto to study or prove that it exist."

Granted sky often talks of "UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft", but that is not the point he's making when he oft mentions Pluto. He's making the point that we can observe Pluto and we can observe UAP, even though we don't have Physical evidence to study and take back the "the Lab" from either Pluto or UAP.

Now you made the point that Skyeagle can look up the location of Pluto and take instruments and study Pluto, that's where I stepped in and pointed out that the same can be said of UAP. The difference being only that Pluto is an object with a Fixed position and UAP, like many other things, are objects with no Fixed positions.











You see, as I just explained above, that is not what he was talking about.







Like I said, I personally wouldn't use skyeagle's Pluto analogy. For instance it wouldn't work if we were talking about the Moon or Mars, we have physical evidence we can take into a Lab from both those bodies and Pluto is a similar body albeit much further away. I'd be more inclined to liken UAP to other objects with no Fixed coordinates like Bolides, micro-meteors, or other rare phenomena. By and large we only have observational data for any given bolides and micrometeors. We can set up All Sky camera networks and other instruments and see both UAP and Bolides and 'shooting stars'. Another example would be 'Sprites', we have nothing but observational data. Very, very interesting and strange observational data at that! You can't just walk outside on any given night and study Sprites with any instrumentation you have available but you can go out into the field and study Sprites with instrumentation, the same is true for UAP.

[quote name='DEBUNKER' date='Jul 11 2007, 06:36 PM' post='1769191']
Sure,some of these unidentified flying objects can be ETI here on a visit,I never said otherwise. But the most probable explanation is that they are some other known manmade or not,or unknown at this time,fenomena.[/quote

I have to disagree simply because the UFOs in question exhibit technology that mankind has not yet mastered. For example, UFOs can fly at low altitudes at hypersonic speeds and not create sonic booms, which is something that mankind cannot do with his aircraft nor can any aircraft conduct right-angled maneuvers at 40+ Gs and stay intact, and that is how I know those UFOs are not ours, amongst other reasons.

Also, it is well-known within military circles that UFOs are very interested in our nuclear facilities and that is no longer a secret, and we don't use secret aircraft to sabotage our nuclear assets.

My "gut instinct" (Like Michael Chertoff's)...is that alien spacecrafts don't give a flying phook about us. They seldom land - why would they when they can just go to the depths of our seas (see Shag Harbour). If they were interested in us (humans) they would stop us from killing each other. But if they see us as simple inhabitants they would only care about the good of the overall planet. Therefore, and with some backup I might add, we cannot nuke this planet out of existance. They won't let us. Some may realize this when their nuke controls are temporarily taken down by a UFO.. Nobody want's to admit inferiority (and maybe they aren't sure of it anyway)...but I doubt we could indulge in full scale thermo-nuclear war even if we wanted to..

The U.S. Air Force has known for decades that UFOs are very interested in our nuclear facilities and weaponry. In regards to UFOs and the ocean, you are correct, and many folks are unaware that many UFOs have been sighted raising from beneath the ocean waves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Unidentified Submarine Objects
Space 2001

Summary:
Unidentified objects are not just confined to the sky. In fact throughout the seas, oceans, as well as lakes and rivers of the world, strange metallic objects have provoked just as much curiosity. In this case they are abbreviated as USO's - Underwater Submarine Objects.

USO's
Unidentified objects are not just confined to the sky. In fact throughout the seas, oceans, as well as lakes and rivers of the world, strange metallic objects have provoked just as much curiosity. In this case they are abbreviated as USO's - Underwater Submarine Objects.

In many cases the line separating UFO's from USO's is a slender one. Not infrequently such objects will catapult themselves from the sea to hover above the waves before vanishing at amazing speed.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1708.htm

Skyeagle409....

I'm sure you have heard of this incident (or seen the documentary) about the passenger jet that was actually "directed" by a flying object. I'm new to this forum so you may have said this many times before...but do you believe this pilot is telling it as it was? I can't imagine that a person would lie about something like that without a real monetary incentive.

Woah!!!!!!!! stop...... Has anyone mentioned the CIA and FBI? could they be hiding the truth?

well you would say that they would not whant culture contamination so they would stay more in the country. so you have farmers that do not know what to look for.
also they could be useing some sort of engine that we know nothing of so it could be some sort or gravity warp. so all would follow the ship.

I haven't seen the documentary, but I have been aware of UFOs interfering with aircraft systems. Most alrline/UFO encounters go unreported because pilots fear for their careers and since a few years ago, I no longer discuss UFOs with my cousins, they still fly for the airlines. Here are some examples on airline encounters with UFOs.

I haven't seen the documentary, but I have been aware of UFOs interfering with aircraft systems. Most alrline/UFO encounters go unreported because pilots fear for their careers and since a few years ago, I no longer discuss UFOs with my cousins, they still fly for the airlines. Here are some examples on airline encounters with UFOs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

The Flight of United Airlines flight 94,

Haines discussed two pilot reports in detail, one of which was an interesting case that occurred at 2105 EST on March 12, 1977 between Buffalo and Albany, New York, that involved United Airlines flight 94, a nonstop flight from San Francisco to Boston. The DC-10 airplane was under the control of autopilot system #2 and was flying at 37,000 feet altitude. The entire sky was dark and clear ahead and above the airplane, except for a partial undercast with small clouds extending to about 20 miles ahead. The aircraft was flying at an indicated air speed of 275 knots (true air speed 530 knots). The aircraft was about half way between Buffalo and Albany, and had just changed from contact with the "FROM" VOR (Very-High-Frequency Omnidirectional Bearing) signal emanating from Buffalo to the "TO" signal from Albany. The aircraft was just south of Syracuse, New York.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the airplane began to turn to the left, making a 15 degree bank. Within a few seconds, the First Officer and the Captain looked to the left side of their plane and saw an extremely bright white light at about their own altitude. Subsequently, the Flight Engineer also looked and saw the light source. It appeared to be perfectly round and its apparent diameter was about 3 degrees of arc. However, the Captain estimated the object to be about 1,000 yards away and to be about 100 feet in size, that corresponds to an angular size of 2 degrees. "Its intensity was remarkable — about the intensity of a flashbulb," he remarked. Boston ATC radioed to ask "United 94, where are you going?" The Captain replied "Well, let me figure this out. I will let you know." He then noticed that the three cockpit compasses (that use sensors in different parts of the plane) were all giving different readings. At this point, the Copilot turned off the autopilot and took manual control of the airplane.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc622.htm

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

America West UFO Sighting

The lights in question were as bright as aircraft landing lights, were at an altitude of around 30,000 to 35,000 feet and were a bright white colour with a tinge of blue. Captain Tollefson rose from his seat to take a look at the phenomena and he saw the left to right sequencing lights also. As the lightning flashed behind the strange lights it silhouetted what appeared to be a large, dark cigar shaped object that was estimated as being between 300 and 500 feet in length.

Source - History Channel Documentary - "Black box UFO Sightings"

http://www.alienationsam.com/historic_ufo/...icawest564.html

http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html

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

NARCAP

http://www.narcap.org/REPORTS/TR6pt1.htm

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

Interference with Aircraft Equipment
(Sturrock Panel Report)
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

Summary: Richard Haines presented a summary of his extensive research into pilot-UFO-sighting reports. He now has a catalog of over 3,000 pilot reports, of which approximately 4% involve transient electromagnetic effects allegedly associated with the presence of strange objects. Another catalog of aircraft-UFO-encounter cases (referred to by Velasco in Section 5) is being compiled by Weinstein (1997) as a GEPAN/SEPRA project; this catalog currently contains several hundred aircraft-UFO-encounter cases.

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

Fighting The Fear Factor:
Local (San Francisco) scientists are quietly working to give UFO sightings a measured look and lend legitimacy to those who spot them
Rick Del Vecchio, The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, Jan 12, 2003

Summary: In-depth article from the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper about NARCAP, Dr. Richard Haines, and pilot UFO sightings. 'Headed by former NASA scientist Richard Haines of Los Altos, the year-old group is one of several private organizations saying that UFOs deserve a measured, scientific look. With research helpers around the country, it's a confidential sounding board for professionals in the taboo-bound aviation field.'

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc601.htm

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

Pilot Sightings
Space 2001

Summary:
Considering the mystery of UFO's is essentially an aerial phenomenon it isn't surprising
that a large percentage of the best sightings are made by military pilots on routine missions!

Bright orange orb.

By this time radio transmission to base was now severed, and alongside the aircraft the bright orange orb was still in close contact! Suddenly the aircraft's generator failed and the cockpit began to fill with smoke. The jet then went into a steep dive and after fighting with the controls Churbakov managed to wrestle the plane away from a major residential area, before ejecting from the stricken aircraft which then ploughed into the ground in a massive fire ball!

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc499.htm

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

Passenger Plane Sightings
Space 2001

Summary:
Statistics show that across the world UFO sightings occur at a rate of around one every two or three minutes. Not surprising then that pilots of commercial airliners should be high on the list of people to have most witnessed them.

The flap of 1947.

In the years before official censorship U S passenger plane sightings were nothing unusual, and one of the best documented cases occurred during the famous UFO flap of 1947. Sightings were then running at an all time high, and on the 4th of July a United Airlines flight from Boise to Seattle reported seeing two flights of U F O' s flying in strict formation. This was simultaneously witnessed by up to four hundred people on the ground. Descriptions ranged from disc or oval shaped objects to fire balls flying in a straight course at tremendous speed. In the event the United Airlines flight crew were able to observe the formation for very nearly fifteen minutes. The following year an unidentified craft almost collided with an Eastern Airlines DC 3. Eye witnesses spoke of a luminous object with rows of brightly lit windows.

In 1950 in the skies above Dayton Municipal Airport a TWA pilot reported a strange object that glowed with a brilliant light. The object was subsequently tracked on radar and disappeared when an F. 51 jet was scrambled to intercept it.

Washington mystery.

1954 proved a particularly hot year for U F O's. On the 19th of July of that year a Pan Am D C 4 above Washington D. C. was buzzed by up to six flying discs. The pilot reported them shooting across the sky at crazy angles, above and below his aircraft, till they vanished out of sight. Barely a week later a Capital Airlines DC 4. was directed by air traffic control to take a look at a strange object on their radar screen.

What the crew encountered was several bright lights hovering above the ground. These flew off and vanished at the planes approach. Said Captain Pierman: " in all my years of flying I've seen a lot of falling or shooting stars but these were much faster than anything I've ever seen. They couldn't have been aircraft...... they were moving too fast". These same objects later created an immense security scare when they entered controlled air space above the White House. Other airliners reported mysterious lights coloured orange, green and red that kept crossing in front of them.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1779.htm

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


A CATALOGUE OF AUSTRALIAN OBSERVATIONS OF UFOS
FROM AIRCRAFT CREW MEMBERS AND PASSENGERS

Compiled and copyright © 2005 by Keith Basterfield
PO Box 786, North Adelaide, South Australia 5006

Updated 15 May 2005

http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbair0505.htm

I definitely believe there is a UFO pheneomena.
I have been following this UFO thing for 20 years now. I try to get my hands on any info i can. And I "always" look at pro and contra. It is very difficult to reach a conclusion.
I really don't think all of them can be mistaken in what they see.
There are just too many.
I really don't know what they are nor what is going on.
The more I give my attention to it the more I suspect there is something amazing going on.
At the same time- as my scepticsism fades -the stranger the mystery of it all becomes clearer.
Yes, UFO's are big business.I know that and it is a fact.
Most of these things are explainable but the mass sightings where there is quite a bit of detail in their forms , professional eyewitness accounts,radar readings, great videos and all is very thought provoking.
If someone is creating these illusions on a mass scale, well then I am very impressed.
Some people must have alot of time and money.
I am not sure about lizard people and abductions however. Too strange and contradictory.
I come from Nevada and these very short discussions came up ( because I drilled these 2 people ecspecially after a few drinks on their part) No they weren't drunk, I tried.
These people (actually were good friends until we lost contact) worked in the Area 51.Maybe they are on this forum ?
This was about 18 years ago.
And they told me this was basically the real thing and info was very limited for me . They weren't letting themselves go.
One of them said to me "It would totally blow your mind if you knew what I know and that's all i have to say so leave me alone !" he actually was irate about it at that point.
So all the info remained very limited bcause they claimed they were given lie detector tests on a regular basis.
I do know they had these top secret or above clearances.
( anyone know if the lie detector test thing is true if you have a top secret or above clearance?)
I am not really a believer nor a non-believer but I lean more to a believer.
I'm in the middle leaning and edging more to "the other side".
Especially after the Larry King show today "Are UFO's real ?"
And yes I have seen UFO's several times with others (come from the desert) but can't say what they actually were.
There still is not enough evidence I know to officially satisfy the scientific community.
They are a tough nut to crack,aren't they ? But that is what they say about the UFO's.