Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
Hazzard

More Best Evidence for aliens

25,265 posts in this topic

in my experiences Ra, anything you want in a book can be found on the net. its the largest information database in the world. as kenny said, you just have to filter out whats authentic/accurate and what is not.

You're right Agent Mulder. I do recall by now that I learned in Business College (about 12 years ago) that the Internet is the largest information database in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ra, I disagree with you. Actually, the Internet probably has more information on every subject there is than any other single place on Earth. The hard part is learning how to search for it. It also probably has more dis-information than any other place. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell which one you're looking at. KennyB

You're right KennyB :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to lay in on the line: the skeptics here don't have the knowledge to know how to operate the gun to shoot holes in anything. That is why they continue to push the plasma line on UFO case files where the 'shoe of plasma' doesn't even fit.

I have said it in the past on many occasions, that there have been eyewitness accounts of airborne and ground-based observers whose accounts were backed by airborne and ground-based radar and other electronic systems of the same objects.

Check this out!

B-29 UFO Encounter

UFOS are detected by military radar. When these detection is confirmed by visual observation, there is no place left for "meteorological" or "astronomical" explanation or so-called "temperature inversion." When speed measurements are made, there is no space left for blaming observers for subjectivity errors. When an entire bomber crew reports, there is no space left for "psychological" dismissal.

In December 1952 Lieutenant Sid Coleman was Radar Officer aboard a B-29 bomber near Galveston. When watching the radarscope, Coleman observed two UFOs which he tracked at a speed in excess of 5.000 miles per hour, quite impossible for planes of the day. The captain of the plane, John Harter, suggested that Coleman recalibrate his set as the sighting was impossible but the sighting was immediately confirmed by the navigator on his radarscope. Eventually four UFOs were seen on the radar screen.

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

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

And that is indeed impressive, 9,000 mph at low altitude!

Any Earth military craft would simply burn up at that speed in the atmosphere...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuRtvDvAE...feature=related

Well, the X-43A goes at 10,000 mph, but that is at very high altitude

Edited by Ra_Sun-God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I rest my case. Accept the account word for word, accept everything reported is 100% accurate, and accept that there could be no other possible explanations, even a still unknown one - and voila, it's aliens!

You're right, it is Alienzzzz, and they come from other planets from other star systems :w00t:http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/38...raphic_Content/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0704..._exoplanet.html

Edited by Ra_Sun-God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, I personally strongly believe in aliens but I think we're talking about 2 different things here. UFOs and aliens. Unidentified Flying Objects are an established fact.

To make the jump to 'they are piloted by aliens' is conjecture. That is not the only possible answer. UFO's may not even be 3 dimensional, they be piloted by robots or androids. They may even be piloted by humans. Until we have actual concrete evidence, we can't say for sure that UFOs are piloted by aliens. To me, concrete evidence means a dead or alive alien. KennyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering how long it would be before we saw Morningstar's name actually mentioned in a post.

Well if it's the guy I'm thinking of, supposedly he's a civillian intelligence analyst and a psychotherapist who has been following the ufo phenomena for about 40 years. He's also researched JFK's assasination.

You can find his latest articles on ufodigest if you want to get a better understanding of where he's comming from (should be obvious from the link provided ;) ).

That Belgian triangle photo analysis is not really what I would call scientific.

Sounds like this Morningstar guy is trying to squeeze in plasma propulsion and odd flight control systems...Whenn the first thing one needs to do is substantiate that the photo is real to begin with??

If this is indeed a real photo of something in the sky, then Id have to say that its a triangular object with lights.

Anything beyond that... (like claiming to see stars in a constellation that no one can actually see on a messy image like that), is nonsense.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That Belgian triangle photo analysis is not really what I would call scientific.

Sound like this Morningstar guy is trying to squeeze in plasma propulsion and odd flight control systems...Whenn the first thing one needs to do is substantiate that the photo is real to begin with??

If this is indeed a real photo of something in the sky, then Id have to say that its a triangular object with lights.

Anything beyond that... (like claiming to see stars in a constellation that no one can actually see on a messy image like that), is nonsense.

Surely you're not suggesting that one of UFO Digest's editors would have an agenda to push, are you Hazzard :blink:

Interesting that you should mention UFO propulsion systems and UFO magazines - I'll be posting a few exerpts from a 1970s edition of such a magazine. Interesting to see some familiar arguments that have been regurgitated here, alongside evidence that, at one point in time, ufology was somewhat of a thinking (non-gender specific) man's past-time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That Belgian triangle photo analysis is not really what I would call scientific.

Sounds like this Morningstar guy is trying to squeeze in plasma propulsion and odd flight control systems...Whenn the first thing one needs to do is substantiate that the photo is real to begin with??

If this is indeed a real photo of something in the sky, then Id have to say that its a triangular object with lights.

Anything beyond that... (like claiming to see stars in a constellation that no one can actually see on a messy image like that), is nonsense.

You're right, it is a triangular shaped UFO witnessed by several people :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5-Qh7HFGg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, it is a triangular shaped UFO witnessed by several people :P

Im pretty sure that most video/pictures/reported "triangular shaped UFOs" in the night sky are aircraft formation flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazzard, you're such a sceptical. And I'd like to see you post your "explanations" along with some scientific or other proof. As at the moment, all you're doing is writing everything off with your own sceptic opinion.

You need to watch a few of the UFO hunters episodes. They address different encounters with UFOs (be it physical contact or just sightings) and they back the evidence up with scientific tests (such as digitally modifying video/pictures to look for anything unusual). One episode really caught my interest, whereby a man who has witnessed a UFO, seen a piece fall off the UFO and land on the road ahead. He recovered this item and still has it today. Many many tests have been done on the item by several different scientists at different locations, and not one of them could prove it was of Earthly origin. They all - unanimously - agreed it was not of Earth origin. So, what is it?

I'll get the links tomorrow! Until then, watch UFO hunters. :P

Edited by Braveheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Braveheart, are you aware that the producers of TV shows manipulate those shows to make you think what they want you to think? Not in the sense that they're controlling your mind of course, but in the way they edit and present the shows. For instance, TV shows are notorious for spinning their POV.

I remember a teacher of mine told us about spin this way:

There's a Russian horse and an American horse in a two-horse race. The American horse wins. Pravda would've reported it like this:

"Russian horse comes in second, American horse comes in next to last." That's pretty much the way shows like UFO Hunters (and Ghost Hunters) are. You may not remember the old "In Search Of...." shows, but they always said something like, "The producers are showing one possibility of the truth. Viewers are encouraged to find out more and make their own decisions," when in fact, the show was at best ambiguous about the results.

In other words, take TV shows, especially those that purport to tell the "truth" about UFOs, with a 5 kilo bag of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Bill Birnes runs the magazine that's embroidered on his hat, I'm sure it's in his interests to project the illusion that the 'case is closed'.

I don't know how much input he, or any of the other guys have in the show's production, but if TAPS and Ghost Hunters are anything to go by, it's definitely part of the formula to present a false impression of 100% conclusive proof of [insert appropriate paranormal phenomena here] as the series progresses.

It's worth paying attention to what Pat has to say to Bill at 3:28 onwards in this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D71sALVvhQE

Bill's 'proof' for this claim? Some UFO footage, 2 unrelated patients with elevated CK levels, the 'fact' that doctors have no 'explanation' for this, and possibly the interviewee being ex-military fits with Bill's own paranoid delllusions.

Elevated CK levels doesn't necessarily mean that there is no explanation. As with many things that pop up in medicine, elevated CK can be from a few things, all of which need to be properly investigated before being confirmed or eliminated. Hypothyroidism is one such example I know of (in at least one rare case values over 8000 u/i were recorded). Something I'm sure the doctors would have said, and didn't make it to the final edit.

Edited by Evangium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That Belgian triangle photo analysis is not really what I would call scientific.

You might as well accept reality for what it is. That photo was analyzed using the methods presented. The data also confirmed the object as artificial, and was nothing of any natural phenomena, as noted by official government sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is indeed impressive, 9,000 mph at low altitude!

Any Earth military craft would simply burn up at that speed in the atmosphere...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuRtvDvAE...feature=related

Well, the X-43A goes at 10,000 mph, but that is at very high altitude

I am sure there are those who will claim that weather balloons can do 10,000 mph. After all, they have claimed that planets were the UFOs the circled around aircraft as they were tracked on radar doing so.

Having a nice time in Las Vegas at the Tuskegee convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everything that is called National Press Club Conference is actually affiliated with the National Press Club. It seems that groups can hire out the rooms for their own conferences, and still call it a 'Press Club Conference'.

Youtube 'coverage' of the event.

Edited by Evangium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard, you're such a sceptical. And I'd like to see you post your "explanations" along with some scientific or other proof. As at the moment, all you're doing is writing everything off with your own sceptic opinion.....

A skeptic not being able to explain, or identify, a UFO is hardly proof that ET visitation is real... As always, it is up to the ones making the claim to produce the proof that any of this is real, not me who finds the data dubious.

I'll get the links tomorrow! Until then, watch UFO hunters.

Iv seen UFO hunters, and I think its the worst tabloid BS on TV today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many many tests have been done on the item by several different scientists at different locations, and not one of them could prove it was of Earthly origin. They all - unanimously - agreed it was not of Earth origin. So, what is it?

I'll get the links tomorrow! Until then, watch UFO hunters. :P

And who exactly are these scientists, The scientists you see on the show?. Not one of them could prove it was of earthly origin?. You do know how these shows are made right?.

I agree with Hazzard, UFO hunters is a bigger load of BS than ghost hunters. we can all pretty much agree that even if there is proof of ET we won't find it on UFO hunters. that's for sure.

on a side note, I would also like to add that Many people forget that UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Objects" and not "Ugly aliens From Outerspace".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the 'schoolmaster' is away, time to read the banned books and play the forbidden music ;)

A thought provaking piece from an old 1979 Flying Saucer magazine, I recently aquired -

From the excerpted from the Mail Bag section, a Swiss gentleman (no, it's not Eduard) expresses his thoughts on UFOs and paraphysical intelligence -

"The adherrents of the [ETH] persist in seeing in the UFOs nothing but extraterrestrial spaceships and speculate uselessly on their "propulsion system" disregarding the diversity of UFO shapes.

The ETH enthusiests forget that they are merely anthropomorphically extrapolating our present mechanist and materialistic science and technology.

In my view, interstellar travel, for which even the speed of light is far too slow, would only be feasible in an immaterial way, e.g. in the form of mind travel.

There is no doubt that the extraterrestrials exist, but those among them who are sufficiently advanced to have mastered the technique of interstellar travel would not resort to such primitive and mterialistic hardware as space vehicles.

For so highly advanced beings, we earthlings would not be interesting enough tojustify their persistent and never-ending visits, all the less because our solar system would not be the sole focus of their galactic explorations.

UFOs are, however sighted around the clock, somewhere in the world. One is forced therefore forced to the conclusion that the intelligence behind the UFOS is not extraterrestrial but paraphysical..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, New boy here, might aswell state where i stand on ET's. (Be gentle with me).

Personally, I havnt ever seen any convincing evidence of Extra terrestrial life full stop. Never mind evidence of ET life visiting earth. (Although i dont discount the possibility out of hand).

Sure iv seen some bizarre and compelling photo's of craft, lights etc (90% of which can be explanied quite simply i believe). But even though these are by their nature UNIDENTIFIED flying objects, its people who have labelled them extra terrestrial. Even if these pics to depict high tech areal vehicles, i think its just as, probably way more likely that these are human built, and flown machines.

Blurry triangles, shiny flat discs, strange floating orbs etc. None of these scream EXTRA TERRESTRIAL to me. And apart from this hap-hazard photographic "evidence", which is speculative and circumstantial at best, all we have is personal accounts from abductee's and contactee's. Now maybe this is just me and my general distrusting nature, but words are just words. Im not discounting these peoples stories, or calling em liars, but regardless of wither they are genuine contactee's, liars, or mentally challenged i dont even wanna hear thier claims as i have no way of confirming the scientific truth behind their claims, wither they are real or not.

So, where does a guy like me look to try to come to a personal conslusion about ET life ? All i can go on is statistical likelyhood and scientific probability. For a start, I have 100% belief in life elsewhere in the universe. And i think its highly probable comparable intelegent life has, does or will exist. But i have no reason to think we have been in contact what-so-ever. (Although again, i cant discount it outright).

And another side-point. Assuming that the steriotypical depiction of aliens in the media and in contactee accounts (Greys with big heads, eyes, long limbs, limited digits etc) is based in some sort of truth. Who says these creatures are alien beings from distant solar systems ? Projecting human evoution from apes, through proto-humans to modern day homo sapiens and beyond... is it rediculous to propose that we may one day look like greys ? For years, in an evolutionary sence, humanity in general has been:

Getting progresively taller

Losing body hair

Increasing cranial size

Losing facial features (Eye brow ridges, nasal flanks, bone mass)

And it wouldnt be wild to speculate that as our intelects grow, and our need for physical strength diminishes due to our crippling dependance on technology, that we may become more slender, require less fingers, an evolve larger, more complex brains, craniums and eyes. Why not postulate that "Greys" could actually be the later stages of human development. I mean its no more or less possible than the theory that they are visitors from other worlds. And no more or less probable than the theory that we are indeed alone. So, assuming that greys are real, and that they contact humans from advanced flying craft, what would be the biggest scientific problem in them visiting us ?

Well, for ET's the answer is FTL travel. For evolved humans, it would be time travel. Both unatainable to us at the moment, and for me, both just as likely or unlikely.

I guess what im trying to say is, we need to keep an open mind. Alien life may not exist. Alien life may exist way outwith our grasp. Alien life might visit us daily, or could actually be an evolution of our selves or if the cosmic string theory of multiple universes is correct it could be somthing different altogether.

I think the media, the internet, conspiracy theorists, untrustworthy govornments and peoples natural fascination with the strange and obscure has turned the serious issue of extraterrestrial life into a huge minefield of speculation and fantasy. Peoples emotions are now tied up in it and a serious, stable and scientific approach to the issue is all but lost alot of the time.

So, where do i stand? Simple. I have no fu**ing clue. Aliens exist somewhere. Apart from that anything i ould say or hope would be just that. Hope.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to an idiot rambling on.

Edited by Spankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard, you're such a sceptical. And I'd like to see you post your "explanations" along with some scientific or other proof. As at the moment, all you're doing is writing everything off with your own sceptic opinion.

You need to watch a few of the UFO hunters episodes. They address different encounters with UFOs (be it physical contact or just sightings) and they back the evidence up with scientific tests (such as digitally modifying video/pictures to look for anything unusual). One episode really caught my interest, whereby a man who has witnessed a UFO, seen a piece fall off the UFO and land on the road ahead. He recovered this item and still has it today. Many many tests have been done on the item by several different scientists at different locations, and not one of them could prove it was of Earthly origin. They all - unanimously - agreed it was not of Earth origin. So, what is it?

I'll get the links tomorrow! Until then, watch UFO hunters. :P

Ahhhh yes.... "UFO hunters" - a show that is no more credible than it's sister show : "Ghost Hunters".

The fact is that they probably did have testers that all agreed it was not of earthly origin. Of course, that is because they only interviewed testers that agreed with that thesis - not the ones that did not. Put simply, even in science, you aren't going to see a literal 100% agreement on anything, and when it comes to something like that it is even more likely that 100% agreement will be impossible to attain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Spankster, but no need to drop the 'F' bomb ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, what do ya mean ?

I meant funking. I play bass. :blush:

(Dually noted, i'll avoid it in the future. Cheers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might as well accept reality for what it is. That photo was analyzed using the methods presented. The data also confirmed the object as artificial, and was nothing of any natural phenomena, as noted by official government sources.

Ill accept no such thing from this clown Robert D. Morningstar ... you might aswell tell me to accept Richard C Hoaglands nonsense as fact!!

His Enterprise Mission Website is as silly as Morningstars Cyberspaceorbit.or should I say KS15s..!??

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/mor...orningstar.html

If this guys photo analysis is scientific, then KS15 is a God damb genious!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.