produce it then, show me the stored radar data. any radar tech is capable of embellishment, lets let the electronics talk.

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but do it responsibly. Just because you don't think there is evidence or do not believe the evidence does not mean that you can unequivically say they don't exist or that it is impossible for aliens to exist. You cannot prove they don't exist. It is that simple. We just recently started getting evidence of giant squid, but they are sure there. Besides there is physical evidence. It is called Roswell. Do not be so nieve to think that the government is just going to outright show us what they have.

If I drive to some other state without spending money, how much evidence to the locals will there be that I was there? Hardly any, it will be the same as what we have of aliens. They will have some eyewitness accounts and maybe fuzzy video survellence evidence of me. That is it. Don't use this stupid argument that the aliens haven't left anything behind. Are you expecting maps, keys, maybe a busted spaceship? Oh wait, we just might have that from Roswell. Don't say there is no physical evidence and then debunk it when it comes in the form of wrecked ships and implants of unknown origin just for the sake of supporting your belief that it is impossible for them to exist.

Incorrect. Not a website, personal experience. The also STILL used firepots and binoculars, for good reason.

Actually, it's not that simple. You are incorrectly placing the burden of proof here. This is a fallacious "appeal to ignorance". One can't logically say that something exists (or is true) solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. We simply don't know for sure if aliens exist or not. The only manner we have to solve the question of alien existence is to produce the definitive evidence for their existence. This is responsible skepticism.

Then ask them what crashed at Roswell in 1947 and you will see my point. CSICOP made themselves a laughing stock in the eyes of the world when they jumped on the bandwagon of Phil Klass and claimed that the UFOs that trailed the Japanese B-747 were the planets Jupiter and Mars. It was evident that they didn't know what they were talking about and it was brought to their attention that the UFOs were in the opposite side of the sky of the encounter, not to mention the Air Force and the FAA tracked them on their radars.

With that developement, they changed their minds and then claimed that ice clouds were responsible for those UFOs. It was then pointed out again to them again that meteorological conditions that night ruled out ice clouds. Then, Tim Printy had to do what he had to do and did so on his own web site.



I mean, where does it all end? I might add that the CIA tried to cover-up this incident but thanks to a senior FAA official, data and communications tapes were smuggled out under the nose of the CIA.

Courtesy of the Belgian Air Force.

Now, show me where this object had anything to do with conventional aircraft or weather-related phonenomena, or even celestrial bodies.






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

Way to change the subject.
If government property was stolen by a senior FAA official, he'd be locked up forever.
While I will certainly agree unusual things happen in the sky, and the Belgian data is certainly abnormal/unusual, pick an adjective, it simply does not spell ALIEN. Anomaly, weather, aircraft, glitch, missile, spacecraft, UFO, alien ship, entity, who knows!? That's the point!

Im going to sigh again, out loud. Your radar data is taken from a website entitled http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ On their site there is no access to the actual data. I help run a few websites, I could easily post something of this magnitude on my own sites and claim its Radar Data taken by Some government. Furthermore Google'ing your data shows that this the only website that has it hosted.

The page is entitled An Analysis of The 3/30/90 Belgian Radar Data: Draft In Progress and was last updated in 1998. Again we have a case of not knowing what scientific data is and something posted on someones personal website

Your second picture there is a radar picture hosted on geocities and the page is named " The Loch Ness Creatures (etc...) Page". Again this website sites none of its data nor provides access to the actual electronic radar data. Also, Its been awhile since I have had to look at radar screens but it appears to be going 990 knots, Google converter says that is 1,100 mph. Hardly impressive, there were many aircraft in 1990 capable of reaching this speed on active duty. Its also funny that the website claims it could not have been a UK or US spy or fighter plane because they have a distinct triangular appearance, then goes on to say.

Again I ask where is this indisputable data, where are these radar data sets?

Lets analyze your first graph some more.
The data shows the aircraft going roughly, just under 600 knots for the period of time from 7.5 to 10.83 seconds. During that time it climbed from 6000 to 1100 feet. Now two things, Obvisouly this graph has been doctored. Because

600k=1012 feet/second we know V=D/T so D=VT, They should have climbed roughly 3330 feet so only to 9330. So these numbers have been fudged, aliens or not, they are not breaking the basic laws of physics here, especially if they are only going 1012 ft/sec or 600 mph, that does not impress upon me their advanced technology to break the laws of physics. So lets say they fudged their top altitude to compensate, b/c the maker of the graph was not aware of V=D/T. Then all of a sudden these numbers do not look that unfamiliar, they are hardly deserving of an advanced race.

Now the second part of the graph shows, after the peak altitude they go into a steep dive, HELLO. during this dive they achieve their top speed of around 1000k or mach 1.5. They weren't flying straight. It looks like they were taking advantage of gravity and after burners to reach this speed. Nothing short of anything we did here on earth during the 1990s

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for both of your analysis Cam.
I was hesitant to point out the source concerns you did, but I'm glad it was mentioned. The tech analysis is much appreciated.

The data was released by the Belgian Air Force and I am holdinig back some information to see if you really know anything about what the data depicts. I have already seen the video of the Belgian press conference (not on the internet either) so I can vouch for the radar data and can tie that data to the image of the F-16's radar.

You see, I have dealt with debunkers before and know the game, so now, you have viable data that I can personally vouch for and I am expecting you to get it on!! Examine the data and disregard that web site if it bothers you.

Keeping the focus on those web sites that I have been warning about.



The data wasn't stolen by any means. The senior FAA official had the responsibility to safeguard all data and he had done so. The data was taken to Washington for examination and the conclusions were, the events happened as reported.



If we didn't have such flying machines with such advanced technology as demonstrated by that UFO, then the object couldn't have been ours for that very reason. When the Belgian Air Force released the radar data at that international news conference showing that the UFO exceeded the sound barrier, then I knew the object wasn't ours because we still haven't solved the riddle of the sonic boom and that is why there are FAA regulations on the books governing supersonic flight over the United States. Researchers have been working on the problem for many years, yet UFOs were regularly flying at hypersonic velocities back during the 1950s and produced NO sonic booms, and the events over Washington D.C. in 1952 are a case in point.

What makes the Belgian UFO encounter unique is that not only was the UFO tracked on the radar systems of two F-16s at the same time, as stated by the lead F-16 pilot in a televised interview, but tracked on the screens of dissimlar ground-based radar systems as well. The Belgian incidents are actually a series of events that repeatedly took place over a period of months, not just in one night.



The imagery of the F-16's radar idoes not depict weather-related phenomena. It is an all-weather radar and the lead pilot also pointed that out in the televised interview the incident was not weather-related.



It is obvious within the data, that the data does not depict performance levels of any type of aircraft. The Belgian Air Force also made that fact very clear in its summary.



The UFO was not the result of a radar glitch, especially since the UFO was tracked on multiple and dissimilar airborne and ground-based radars and this is a radar/visual case file as well.



Definitely not a missile. The UFO was the size of a B-747, hovering with hardly a sound, and reacting to each of the F-16's lock-on attempts.



Same as a missile. It has been suggested that the UFO was an F-117, but the F-117 is too small in comparison with the UFO and the F-117 cannot hover, is noisy and cannot fly at superonic speeds nor is it very maneuvable.

I was waiting for you to try and debunk the data. Now, let's tie the data to the radar imagery as released by the Belgian Air Force. Obviously, the data wasn't doctored at all, but I am aware of games debunkers play. Now, I ask you, what mode is this radar in at this point?

He didn't know how to deceipher the data information in the graphs as evident by the fact he failed to understand the relationship between MSL and SL and as a result, he misinterpreted the data information as given. That is the way debunkers work and they don't do their homework properly. Also, he wrote the UFO was in afterburner, and not even the Air Force's F-22 is capable of such aceleration rates within seconds, even in a dive, which simply told me that he is not knowledgable enough on the subject to debate anyone. I might add that such high airspeeds below 1000 feet would have driven a jet engine's TIT to the point where the engine would be in danger of failing, not to mention the extremely high consumption of fuel of jet engines at sea level in full afterburner. That is why jets cruise at higher altitudes because they consume less fuel then at the lower altitudes.

Now, let's examine your assessment in detail. Since the elevation of the encounter was not at sea level, then I have to ask you this question; do you know the difference between MSL and SL??? One fact I brought up in the past about debunkers, they are so anxious to debunk UFOs, that the tend to forget the little details that others who are in-the-know, would capture.

If an aircraft climbs out from ground level in Denver at 1000 feet per minute, at what altitude will that aircraft obtain in 2 minutes? Answer: 7280 feet on the altimeter if it is set correctly.



The data wasn't fudged, you've just misinterpreted the graph because you failed to compensate between MSL and SL.



It is obvious to me that you do not know how to read graphs correctly. From 4.17 to 5.00 seconds, what aircraft is capable of producing such a drastic change in performance?

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000
05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

That maneuver between 04 seconds and 05 seconds would have destroyed an F-22 Raptor and the Air Force's F-22 is not capable of such acceleration rates, even in a dive. The altitude at this point remained at 6000 feet and the UFO did not have afterburners and even in afterburner, and note earlier, no jet is capable of the acceleration rates as demonstrated by that UFO in the graphs, but you should have noted the acceleration rates immediately if you knew how to read graphs, or did you?!

I could not agre more.

The UFO "fenomena" is poisoned beyond recovery.

Thats to bad, just what if one of these sightings are the real deal(!)...Both sceptics and believers are the loosers in this senario.



Oh yes, Hi everyone, Im back!

I have said in the past, that unless skeptics can prove the UFOs in question as those of mankind, then they have to invoke the ETH.

You might be familiar with one who is still alive. His name is Charles Moore. His UFO report is was written up in LIFE Magazine in 1952.




Here is one of the official reports I have posted.




HOW SCIENTIST TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER

http://www.nicap.org/articles/true-mc.htm


It might be of interest to you what was discussed here.

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

SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED
FLYING OBJECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

JULY 29, 1968

[No. 7]

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










I have access to Project Mogul balloon records courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. That should pretty-much sum it up as to how I knew there were no Mogul balloon train flight #4. I have often said that, it doesn't make any difference who presents the evidence, as long as that evidence is factual.



I find that amusing considering that James Oberg once tried to educate me on the F-4 Phantom and when the smoke cleared, it was He, who had to bow down. UFO skeptic, Tim Printy, thought that he had me on the Air Force's C-54 and Kirtland AFB, and when the smoke had cleared, it was He who was forced to make a correction on his web site. You can view it here. His correction is written in "red."

TIM PRINTY FORCED TO MAKE CORRECTION

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/crews.html

Another participant was in with me on the argument as well and he continues to participate on this board.



Much of the data and other sources of information can be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) if you don't like using the internet, but all you are going to do is to pay money for the same information that I have been providing on message boards for years. The choice is up to you because it is your money.





http://www.nicap.org/life52.htm

Since I read this magazine at the local library recently, it is the "Real McCoy."



Well, you know, it is the same information and data that I saw in the video as presented by the Belgian Air Force. Sometimes, debunkers just don't bother to do their homework like they should.

Well, this was interesting enough that I had to register and leave a comment.

Nice job skyeagle.

Note that I'm not the 'true believer' type, just someone who finds the possibility fascinating.

VM

you still linking data off websites like....
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/crews.html
http://www.ufoevidence.org/GovtDocs/FBI8/FBI8-3.gif

If its so sound and so infallible link it out of a scientific journal that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists with credentials, other than "Hi im some guy on the internet that believes in UFOs this is my website with proof"
Until then you are posting data subject to bias, tampering, hoaxing, etc. The convenient thing for your type is, your "unclassified documents" hosted on sites like www.goaliens.com can be made by anyone with a type writer.


BTW the one scientist who comes up in the Belgian incident consistently (Professor Meessen) couldn't get his work publish in a legitimate scientific journal upon review, which is why he wrote a book. He is also shunned by his peers now, Guess that makes 1 credible scientist!

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.

And another thing skyeagle,I always thought that it was the one making the claim,that they are of extraterrestrial origin, that had the burdon of proof. Not me,or the others,who finds your "proof" less than a 100% scientific.

I only addressed the first graph as a simple scenario, The data regardless is irrelevant as all your numbers and figures are coming from personal websites

Anyone who objectively and extensively looks into the UFO subject cannot realy escape the fact that UFOs are real and 'some' UFOs are completely inexplicable.
If an object is captured and plotted by ground and air radar and corellated by trained military observers then it is not an hallucination.
If the object then accelerates to 5000 miles per hour and executes a right angle turn ,what is it?
Theres certainly no credible,viable answers coming from sceptics and for many 'debunkers' its more about shoehorning in their own cynical preconceptions rather than an impartial regard for answers.
The 'ET hypothesis' is not so outlandish and many scientists,academics and high ranking military officials have stated its the 'only' feasible explanation for 'some' UFO cases.

To sum it up simply, you've made a serious error!

You have to address all aspects of the data and it doesn't matter who provides the information, just as long as that information is factual. In this case, the Belgian Air Force was the original source of that information, not that web site.

What difference does that make since the information can be ascertained from other sources not connected directly to the internet? Go to your local library and pull out some microfilm if it doesn't have back-issues of the publication I've presented.



How much time do you have?

UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature

Aeronautics and Astronautics

"AIAA Committee looks at the UFO Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, December, 1968, p. 12. Golomb S., "The Wheel in the Middle of the Air," Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Sounding Board, August 1966, p. 16. Letters to AIAA Journal, Nov. 1966, p. 6. Early and Marsh on "Saucer Doctrine". Friedman, S.T., "Flying Saucers are Real ", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Feb., 1968, p. 16. Friedman, S.T., "UFO reports available," Aeronautics and Astronautics, April, 1971, p. 4. Kuettner, J. P., "A New Start on the Whole UFO ProbIem?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, November 1973. McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 5, August 1967, pp. 19-20. McDonald, James E., "UFO Encounter I - Air Force Observations of an Unidentified Flying Object in the South-Central U.S., July 17, 1957", in Aeronautics and Astronautics, July, 1971, pp. 66-70. Sturrock, Peter. A., "UFO Reports from AIAA Members", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 12, pp. 60-64, 1974. Thayer, Gordon D., "UFO encounter II - The Lakenheath England, Radar-Visual UFO case, August 13-14, 1956", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sept., 1971, pp. 60-64. AIAA UFO Subcommittee,

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

1956 LAKENHEATH UFO INCIDENT

On the night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.

It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.).

A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]."



B-36 Peacemaker

The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.

At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).

Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]." At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.

Soon after, radars at Bentwaters and RAF Lakenheath reported a stationary object 20-25 miles (32-40 km.) southwest of the latter base. It suddenly began moving north at 400 to 600 mph (650 to 1,000 km./hr.), but "there was no build-up to this speed - it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." It made several abrupt changes of direction without appearing to slow for its turns.

Around 11:30 p.m., the RAF launched a deHavilland Venom jet interceptor, from RAF Waterbeach. According to the U.S. Air Force UFO report:

"Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate. At 13 miles [20 km.] west he reported loss of target and white light. Lakenheath (radar) vectored him to a target 10 miles [16 km.] east of Lakenheath and pilot advised (that) target was on his radar and was 'locking on.' Pilot then reported he had lost target on his radar.

"Lakenheath GCA reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. Radar requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance.

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

Continue:

"UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 8. No. 11, November 1970, P. 49-51. Carlson J. B., and Sturrock, Peter A., "Stanford Workshop on Extraterrestrial Civilization: Opening a New Scientific Dialog", Aeronautics and Astronautics, June, 1975, pp. 64-65. "Our Extraterrestrial Heritage: From UFO's to Space Colonies", Proceedings of the Joint Symposium, Los Angeles, Calif., January 28, Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and World Futures Society, 1978.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

McDonald, James E., "Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Hynek, J. Allen, "Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Baker, R. M. L., "Motion Pictures of UFO's", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

American Meteorological Society

McDonald, James E., "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns", Paper Presented at the 14th Radar Meteorology Conference, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 17-20, 1970. Boston: American Meteorological Society (1970), pp. 456-463.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10. Earley, G., "UFOs: An Historical Perspective", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-18, 1967, pp. 1-15, session 10.

American Journal of Physics

Page, Thornton, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," American Journal of Physics, October, 1969.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist

Hynek, A., "The Condon Report and UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, April 1969, pp. 39-42. Munday, J., "On the UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Dec 1967, pp. 40-41. Condon, Edward U., "UFOs I have Loved and Lost", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Vol 15, No. 10.

Applied Optics

Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand", Applied Optics, Vol 18, No. 15, 2527-28, 1979. Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand -- Author's Reply to Comments", Applied Optics, 19, 1745, 1980. Icarus McDonald, James E., "The Condon Report", Icarus, Vol 11, #3, November 1969, pp. 443-447.

Astronomy

Dickinson, Terence, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", Astronomy, December 1974, 32 pages.


Industrial Research

"UFO's probably exist", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 1971, p. 75. "Did UFOs Go Away?", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 1979, p. 191. "Good Chance UFOs Exist in Some Form", Industrial Research and Development, July 1979, p. 139.

Scientific Research

"Libel Suit May Develop From UFO Hassle", Scientific Research, may 13, 1968, pp. 11-12. Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "The UFO Report: Condon Study Falls Short", Scientific Research, April 14, 1969, p. 41.

Popular Science

Armagnac, Alden P., "Condon Report on UFOs: Should You Believe It?", Popular Science, April 1969, pp. 72-76.

Engineering Opportunities

Hersey, Irwin, "UFOs and the Condon Report: Are All the Answers in?", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, pp. 39-42. McDonald, James E.,"The Dissenting View", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, p. 33.

Science and Mechanics

Mallan, Loyd, "The Condon Report: Fact or Fiction?", Science and Mechanics, 40.5, May 1969, pp. 38-40, 86,88,90.

Technology Review

Hynek, J. Allen, "The UFO Phenomenon: Laugh, Laugh, Study, Study", Technology Review, Vol. 83, No. 7 July 1981, pp. 50-58.

Nature

Ridpath, Ian, "Interview with J. Allen Hynek", Nature, Vol. 251, October 1974, p. 369.

I might add that J. Allen Hynek was once a UFO skeptic, that is, until he conducted his investigation.



Journal of the Optical Society of America

Hynek, J., "Unusual Aerial Phenomena", Journal of the Optical Society of America, April 1953.

Science

Powers, William, "Analysis of UFO Reports", Science, Vol. 156, 7 April, 1967. Hynek, Allen J., "UFO's Merit Scientific Study", Science, October 21, 1966. Markowitz, W.,"The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", Science, Vol. 157, 1967. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground", Science, Vol. 161, July 26, 1968, pp. 339-42. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits from Outer Space", Science, Vol. 163, January 17, 1969, pp. 260-62.

About that Condon Study.

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

I would like to add:


Science in Default:Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting

General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects

James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

The University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona

December 27, 1969

"No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been carried out during the entire 22 years that have now passed since the first extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of 1947."

"Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of public concern, only quite superficial examinations of the steadily growing body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses have been conducted in this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all evidence now points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar characteristics throughout the world."

Eh, read my sig below.

This links to a page, that makes a claim, supported by a 1952 article from Life magazine. The page does not display a link to the original article, nor does it have a pdf copy. 2 of the pages other magazine links are broken. The article has obviously been retyped as the format is fit to html and is typed not scanned. If you think this is providing evidence then I suggest you use your Airforce college money to attend a community college and take a comparative
studies class with a subject on scientific evidence.


You can't get the original document because its in the hands of the C.I.A and government.
Your not guna go to them and say ' Can see the documents to the reports of a ufo sighting over texas?
They would day ' No and if you ask again we through you to jail' Thats how secret it is. but the magazine has photocopies of the documents not the 'original'
And btw Skyeagle allready knows this stuff due to his work With the airforce.

Lol

Lol sorry I wasn't very specific,I see you complied a nice list of journals from the 60's and 70's. Also here is the important part, since I was not specific in my explanation, I was referring to peer-reviewed article. Interviews, Personal Statements, Letters to the readers, etc is not peer-reviewed and is just as slushy science as pulling data off a website called savethealiens.com.

Edit: You also dont see a slight coincidence in the publish dates? They happen to coincide with UFO fever? I guess if these are ETs visiting us and scientist know about it then you should have no trouble find many a peer-reviewed article from todays major journals.

This is what I found amusing.



Yet, the data shows that within one second, from 4 to 5 seconds after lock-on, the UFO accelerated from 150 knots to 560 knots, and it wasn't in a dive, it was in level flight.

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000
05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

To sum it up, the UFO was in level flight at this point, which meant that the UFO could not have been a jet aircraft in full afterburner in a dive and no aircraft is capable of accelerating from 150 knots to 560 knots in one second in a dive anyway, much less in level flight. You can accelerate a jet fighter off an aircraft carrier at 180 knots in 2 seconds or so, but you can't accelerate that same aircraft up to 410 knots in one second, even in full afterburner.

the whole phenomona leads to nowhere. millions of people have seen the "ufos" but cant get a clear shot of it or even material. its a load of bs and to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense would be plausible. any skeptic here would agree

They do leave behind evidence and the ocean is a very big place other than the universe.



Did you really think that no evidence has ever been left behind?






Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
(Sturrock Panel): Ground Traces
Peter Sturrock / Sturrock Panel Report / Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

Summary:
A few of the reports that have been investigated by GEPAN/SEPRA show ground traces that may be associated with the events reported by witnesses. Similar cases have been documented by other investigators. Phillips (1975) prepared a catalog of 561 such cases as a CUFOS report.

ET's Calling Card?




The Alleged Crash at Aurora (Texas): April 17, 1897
Physical Analyses in ten cases of unexplained aerial objects. J. Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3

"It was investigated again in 1973 by William Case, a journalist with the Dallas Time-Herald, and by personnel from the McDonnell Douglas aircraft company. While the 1897 story reported that the airship was "built of an unknown metal resembling somewhat a mixture of aluminum and silver," the fragment found by Case and his co-workers was determined to consist of aluminum (83%) and zinc (about 16%) with possible traces of manganese and copper. The combination could originate with numerous common aluminum alloys, according to the McDonnell scientists, but not prior to 1908."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...lee_phys/4.html


THE LONNIE ZAMORA CASE
Socorro, New Mexico, April 24, 1964

"While chasing a speeding car at about 5:45 p.m., Officer Lonnie Zamora of the Socorro Police Department heard a roar and saw flame in the sky to the southwest. Thinking that a dynamite shack in that area must have blown up, he abandoned the chase and went to investigate. As he approached the arroyo on unpaved roads he saw an elliptical object resting on legs in a gully. A red "insignia" or emblem was visible on the side toward him, and standing near it were two humanoid figures."

"An FBI report dated May 8, 1964, notes that Zamora has been personally known for about 5 years and is "well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy." The report also confirms the scorched foliage and the imprints, noting that, "Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line [and each] pushed some earth to the far side."

"Two years after the sighting, Major Hector Quintanilla, Air Force Chief of Project Blue Book at the time of the sighting, confided to intelligence specialists in a classified CIA publication that the Socorro case remained "puzzling." With the help of many other agencies, he had conducted an exhaustive check of military activities looking for an explanation, but none could be found."

They definitely didn't find Easter eggs at this UFO landing site in New Mexico!








NORAD Tracks Fast Walker UFOs

MAY 5, 1984, an alert was triggered at the North America Air Defense Command. Moving at 22,000 miles per hour, it was heading toward Earth and had been determined to NOT be incoming ballistic missles, or any other type of conventionally explainable object. Once tracked, it was code-named "Fast Walker".

Aerojet engineers, the folks who built the DSP satellite have confirmed that their DSP satellites track 2-3 "Fast Walkers" per month. One of the engineers is releasing information that proves DSP satellites have been tracking UFOs for years. In fact, it was a DSP satellite that confirmed this UFO incident.

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

FAST WALKER VIDEO

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram



THE FANTASTIC FLIGHT OF JAL FLIGHT 1628

UFO as large as two aircraft carriers.

http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

Sky I think at this point its obvious that you can not pull credible evidence, the most scientific things you can come up with are opinion pieces in journals from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If I were to discover how to use fusion as a power source, you can bet it would be independently reviewed by numerous scientists and scientific organizations around the world, it would be head line news from Malaysia to Alaska. It would be opened up to scrutiny from the scientific community and if found to be true would published in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

Solid evidence for a history changing event, such as the conformation of extraterrestrials on earth would not be confined to media speculation, opinionated pieces, conspiracy theorist memorandums and hushed believer circles on the internet.

The idea of extraterrestrials among us is very romantic, as is belief in an after life, spirits, ghosts, telekinesis, faith healing and an Apatosaurus living in the Congo. However romantic and majestic these ideas seem, they have one thing common. To proclaim their existence as an absolute truth, you have to at some point, step away from science, from the scientific method, from clear and concise evidence and profess supernatural explanations. As history dictates, super natural explanations have never accurately answered an occurrence in the universe.

I once wrote an opinion piece on what I consider to be the greatest danger facing American society today. No it was not global warming, I believe the lack of scientific understanding is the danger. In an ever technologically advancing world there is no place for those that can not keep up. Your apparent disregard for the request of credible evidence only deepens my fear of this danger. To see someone walk away from the American military, with what sounds on your accord, a firm understanding of science not be able to tell the difference between speculation and fact, between theory and law, between opinion and truth only saddens me.

Just a future FYI in case you are ever arguing this with someone in the future who asks for scientific proof. I don't ever recall a representative from The prestigious Society for Scientific Exploration on supernatural phenomenon at a National Academy of Sciences proceeding.

Just a helpful thought

So now aliens are telepathic and giving implants to people but the guy never once described what they looked like. Was he afraid that the aliens would read his mind cause he did the report anyway. If you want to be credible to the public you have to give details or I consider it Bull****. Honestly an alien medical team sounds a little fishy but I would have to give it to them with the pictures of the implants which are supposively from another world.

Solid evidence for a history changing event, such as the conformation of extraterrestrials on earth would not be confined to media speculation, opinionated pieces, conspiracy theorist memorandums and hushed believer circles on the internet.


I allready told you cant get the orignal.

Camlax, that is just another attribute of a debunker that I have seen over the years. Now, all of a sudden, scientific journals are irrelevant AFTER you had mentioned the LACK of UFOs in scientific journals. It seems that you think that people on this board were born yesterday. Note the dates.

Note the DATES!












Military experience is how I am able to ascertain the facts and to determine when somesone is on a debunking campaign.