More Best Evidence for aliens

[skyeagle409]

Are there any pilots on this board? Im just wondering, in the Minot AFB case, the officials explained it away as the pilots misidentifying a star. Shouldn't trained, experienced pilots be able to tell the difference between a craft and a star in the night sky? It seems kind of like a pretty amatuer mistake

Yes, and I am a pilot of 40 years.

It is silly to think that pilots would confuse a star for the object in the Minot AFB case. Ironically, last year when my chapter participated in an airshow in California, we were parked next to a B-52 from Minot AFB, and I had a chance to talk to the aircrew of that aircraft.

Before I left for California, I was in a debate regarding the Minot AFB, B-52, UFO encounter and I never would have imagined that a day later, I would be parked next to a B-52 and talking to an aircrew from Minot AFB. I have also spoken with an air traffic controller from Minot AFB as well and he told me of his experience while stationed at Minot AFB because he also witnessed an UFO nearby on another occasion.

So here is where highly trained and experienced aircrews have spoken a artificial flying objects and in many cases, described in great detail, descriptions of the objects, which clearly, were of flying machines, yet there are skeptics with no experience whatsoever, who will come out and insist that highly experienced aircrews don't know what they are talking about and pull some thing out of thin air like; "unknown atmospheric phenomena" or "plasma," which plasma experts have rejected, and even UFO debunker, Phil Klass, dropped plasma as well, but there are die hard skeptics who will cling to plasma no matter what in a vain effort to try and debunk UFOs, but that can be expected.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[badeskov]

Wrong, Atmospheric phenomena do not look metallic shiny at all. You are so wrong about that!

I know this is not regarding the metallic looking surfaces, but I figured I'd post it anyways as it has some relevance. From the Hessdalen EMBLA 2000 report (PDF), pp. 10.:

TYPE 5. Three co-moving lights in the sky: the “Triangle”

Distance: undetermined, Direction: from south to north, Position: moving in the sky from 20° (low

over horizon) up to 80° along a maximum circle which was close to the zenith, Speed: about 30°/min,

Colour: white-yellow, Noise: none, Duration: 2-3 minutes, Regime of motion: complex of 3 co-

moving lights in an exact triangular disposition, which first moved linearly and slowly towards the

observers, then stopped for 5-10 seconds at an height of about 80° while doing a 90° rotation around

its axis, lastly slowly disappeared (about over the observers’ vertical), Number of Events: 1,

Luminosity: slowly changing from Jupiter-like intensity to star-like intensity, Shape: point-like lights

disposed in a geometrical configuration (exact equilateral triangle) - underlying dark triangular object

visible with binoculars, Radioactivity: normal level, Height above the ground: undetermined, Angular

Dimensions of the Triangular Complex: 3-5°, Time: 24.00 - 24.15, Witnesses: 4 (2 groups), Sighting

Locations: Aspåskjölen and near Finnsåhögda, Report type: visual, binocular, intensified/IR and

Geiger.

Just something to ponder before dismissing natural phenomena immediately.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

I know this is not regarding the metallic looking surfaces, but I figured I'd post it anyways as it has some relevance. From the Hessdalen EMBLA 2000 report (PDF), pp. 10.:

Just something to ponder before dismissing natural phenomena immediately.

Make that fit the shoe of the UFO case files and photos that I have listed, particularly the Minot AFB case. And, make the phenomena react to aircraft imputs and radar lock-ons, and do so for over an hour.

Heck, you can see triangular lighting arrangements every night on aircraft, expecially on the Air Force's C-5, which flies ovehead with two landing lights near the wing tips and one on the nose wheel and what you will see is a triangular arrangement of lights, yet no UFO reports.

What it is, you are not looking at the full scope of what I am talking about and the proof of that lies in the fact you brought up natual-occurring triangular lighting arrangements when anyone can go near an airport, particularly large airports and see such triangular lighting arrangements on aircraft every night if they wish.

It is clearly obvious that the Belgian Triangle had nothing to do with natural-occurring phenomena, and you might as well get away from plasma in that regard.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

Skyeagle - without making any references to any ufo cases, could you give your definition of what the words unknown atmospheric phenomena mean to you?

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle - without making any references to any ufo cases, could you give your definition of what the words unknown atmospheric phenomena mean to you?

You should bring that up to the skeptics who were the folks who brought it up.

But, I do know that it has nothing to do with objects that were clearly under intelligent control as indicated as they interacted with aircraft.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

You should bring that up to the skeptics who were the folks who brought it up.

No i'm asking you for your definition of those 3 words?

[skyeagle409]

No i'm asking you for your definition of those 3 words?

Unknown is just that: "unknown atmospheric phenomena." Question is, what does that have to do with the UFO case files that I have listed?

Is this what you can refer to as,"unknown atmospheric phenomena?"

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[Evangium]

You should bring that up to the skeptics who were the folks who brought it up.

But, I do know that it has nothing to do with objects that were clearly under intelligent control as indicated as they interacted with aircraft.

Amazing, finally a straight answer.*

edit: Original text irrelevent now that the question has been answered.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Evangium

[skyeagle409]

Amazing, finally a straight answer.*

edit: Original text irrelevent now that the question has been answered.

There are those skeptics who fail to read what I wrote, to understand what was written.

[skyeagle409]

double post

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

Unknown is just that: "unknown atmospheric phenomena." Question is, what does that have to do with the UFO case files that I have listed?

Is this what you can refer to as,"unknown atmospheric phenomena?"

I removed the photo because I'm really not interested in it.

So if unknown is just that, unknow (your words) - then it remains that the cause and effect is by definition, unknown. Even if you use the words structured flying machine yet again, how can you know the cause of that if you admit that unknown atmospheric phenomena is unknown?

Edited August 1, 2009 by Sky Scanner

[Evangium]

There are those skeptics who fail to read what I wrote, to understand what was written.

What a pity I edited my post before you edited yours with your sorry excuse for 'evidence'.

And what a pity you still can't argue your argument on it's own merits, instead of trying to trap the discussion into one narrow track with 'weather phenomena' on one end and 'I'm right, because I say so' on the other.

Ah well, at least it's a short discussion that we're going to have.

I personally don't see the point in pursuing this discussion with you, since you seem to still be under the illusion that you can pick and choose who argues what according to your script.

[skyeagle409]

I removed the photo because I'm really not interested in it.

That's okay, because it won't change reality anyway!

So if unknown is just that, unknow (your words) - then it remains that the cause and effect is by by definition, unknown. Even if you use the words structured flying machine yet again, how can you know the cause of that if you admit that unknown atmospheric phenomena is unknown?

Easy!

Can you attribute the object in this photo as some "unknown atmospheric phenomena?" If not, then I rest my case!

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

That's okay, because it won't change reality anyway!

Easy!

Can you attribute the object in this photo as some "unknown atmospheric phenomena?" If not, then I rest my case!

Don't act the fool - we know the origin of an aeroplane, so stop trying to be clever, it doesn't suit you.

You can't answer the question, that's fine, just admit it......

[skyeagle409]

Don't act the fool - we know the origin of an aeroplane, so stop trying to be clever, it doesn't suit you.

Just answer the question, because in many cases, highly experienced military and commercial aircrews described the UFOs in great detail just as you see in the photo.

Frankly, I am surprised that you didn't pick on what I was presenting. In other words, the aircrews described flying machines and skeptics with no experience are telling the highly experienced aircrews that they don't know what they are talking about, so using their own mindset, I can atttribute that aircraft in the photo to some kind of unknown atmospheric phenomena.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[Evangium]

Now show us the equally clear picture of the flying saucer. The one that shows as much detail. We'd all like to have a look in the portals.

That's right, you can't since such a picture doesn't exist in any open source. Well what about the secret world 'behind closed doors' of the USAF? Surely some of your compatriots have shown you such pictures for you to be so confident that they've been serving you the real meat'n'taters out the back door, while spam's been served out the front of house.

Perhaps you could come up with some pictures of the weather phenomena that you seem to think everyone else is arguing. Since your an expert, you're bound to have some pictures of plasma, angels, Venus and anything else you've accused us all of holding up as 'debunking' shown under similar conditions to the cases that other people have put forward in those cases.

Or should I rest my case, that your silly apples'n'oranges comparison proves nothing?

[skyeagle409]

Now show us the equally clear picture of the flying saucer.

Why don't you comment on the Belgian photo that I posted because it is clear enough to see that it isn't a B-757.

.jpg

The 1958 Trindade Island Brazil "saturn"-shaped UFO was photographed while being seen by more qualified observers than any other 1950s sighting.

When ufologists can't find strings, shadows or signs that a UFO photo is faked, they question the credibility of the photographer and witnesses. Trained observers -including pilots, ship captains etc- are generally considered good witnesses. It is the corroborating testimony of the crew members on the deck of the Brazilian Navy ship "Almirante Saldanha" that makes the Trindade, Brazil UFO photos so interesting.

As part of its contribution to the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, the Brazilian Navy set up a weather station on the small rocky island of Trindade, in the south Atlantic Ocean. Observers began spotting unusual aerial activity visually and on radar. At noon on 16-Jan-1958, the UFO shown here appeared for a few seconds within view of the ship's company. The incident was not isolated, but at least five other sightings had occurred in the island or near the water during the end of 1957 and in January 1958.

The crew onboard saw a bright grey object approach the island, fly behind a mountain peak and then do a acute-angle turn around and head back the way it came, disappearing at high speed over the horizon. Among those present was civilian photographer Almiro Barauna, who snapped a series of 6 photos, of which 4 showed the UFO. After the ship returned to port, the photos, which had been developed on board in a makeshift darkroom, were turned over to the Brazilian Navy Ministry. Analysts determined the photos to be authentic and concluded they showed a diskoid object moving at 900-1000Km/hr. According to Capt. Viegas, the object was like a flattened sphere encircled at the equator by a large ring or platform. In Barauna's words, "...it made no noise, although with the shouting of the people on the deck and the noise of the sea, I cannot be certain. It had a metallic look, of an ash color, and has like a condensation of a green vapor around the perimeter, particularly in the advancing edge. Its motion was undulating, like the flight of a bat." The photos were later released to the Press by the President of Brazil, Mr Juscelino Kubitschek.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...=2&ct=image

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

Just answer the question, because in many cases, highly experienced military and commercial aircrews described the UFOs in great detail just as you see in the photo.

Frankly, I am surprised that you didn't pick on what I was presenting. In other words, the aircrews described flying machines and skeptics with no experience are telling the highly experienced aircrews that they don't know what they are talking about, so using their own mindset, I can atttribute that aircraft in the photo to some kind of unknown atmospheric phenomena.

Yes they describe flying machines - you admit that unknowns are unknown, yet you claim to be able to indentify the origin of what is reported as a structured flying craft, and not just any structured flying craft, no you claim to be able to identify the origin of structured flying craft that bare no resemblance to earthly flying machines - do you really think we are all that stupid that we can not see the obvious flaws in your blatently false statements?

Why don't you comment on the Belgian photo that I posted because it is clear enough to see that it isn't a B-757.

.jpg

You have got to be kidding, right?

[badeskov]

It is clearly obvious that the Belgian Triangle had nothing to do with natural-occurring phenomena, and you might as well get away from plasma in that regard.

You still haven't convinced me. As I stated earlier and will repeat again. I am not looking for you personal interpretation of the interaction between technology and arial phenomena you clearly do not understand.

Bring out those scientific investigations that clearly excludes natural causes, which you obviously have since you keep referring to your so called scientists and experts. Your usual tap dancing is not helping you the least, rather the opposite.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

Why don't you comment on the Belgian photo that I posted because it is clear enough to see that it isn't a B-757.

.jpg

Ugh. To echo Sky Scanner, you are joking right? If not, this is indeed a new low

Cheers,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

You have got to be kidding, right?

Nope! Now, answer the question for us all.

Is that object the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomena? If not, then I rest my case again.

[skyeagle409]

Ugh. To echo Sky Scanner, you are joking right? If not, this is indeed a new low

Since you are here, perhaps you would like to answer the question about that object in the photo.

Can you attributed that object to some unknown atmospheric phenomena?

Please answer the question, . Right now, the skeptics are over a barrel because the object in the photo is clear enough to see that it isn't a cloud nor even plasma and in fact, similar to the object described in the JAL encounter over Alaska, but much smaller.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

Nope! Now, answer the question for us all.

Is that object the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomena? If not, then I rest my case again.

Yes it could very well be an unknown atmospheric phenomena - I'm assuming then you have managed to completely debunk Jenny Randles analysis and thoughts on this photo, as well as rule out the weather phenomena she has coined the phrase 'time storms' for, it's just an idea of hers, but has plenty of cases with similiar cause and effect symptoms, or it could just be an optical effect caused by the camera, who knows......

Show us where you've debunked all these ideas? Then show us all the evidence you have which shows that it is a structured flying craft piloted by aliens?

[TSS]

Since you are here, perhaps you would like to answer the question about that object in the photo.

Can you attributed that object to some unknown atmospheric phenomena?

Please answer the question, . Right now, the skeptics are over a barrel because the object in the photo is clear enough to see that it isn't a cloud nor even plasma and in fact, similar to the object described in the JAL encounter over Alaska, but much smaller.

LOL - priceless! It's either a cloud, plasma or an alien piloted ufo! It just gets better! What was it you was saying about unknowns being unknown again......

This is all rather comical I must say....

[skyeagle409]

Yes it could very well be an unknown atmospheric phenomena -

No it cannot and if you read up on the history of that object, you would have known why it can't be attributed to any unknown atmopheric phenomena.

Is it any wonder then, why I have slammed debunkers for not doing any homework?!