More Best Evidence for aliens

[Lilly]

The author I read said that life developing so quickly was highly unlikely, an interesting proposition to explain Fermi's Paradox - not we are alone, we are just the first. Most other planets would have some cellular sludge and so on.

It's certainly possible that we're the most advanced life form in our galaxy, but there are quite a few galaxies out there. There are probably other advanced life forms elsewhere in the universe, they're just far, far, far away from us!

[Ra_Sun-God]

Of course it can! As I noted in that debate, radar can differentiate between bird and bat species and track specific maneuvers of a particular object. To further add, the Belgian object reacted intelligently to each of the aircraft's lock-ons and broke the contacts. You can't get ball lightning to react in such a manner for over an hour, and that is a major clue right there!

With such technology, a UAV can be designed to attack only Pelicans and leave the Sparrows alone. When someone tells me that data from radar cannot determine intelligence, all they are telling me is that they are not aware of the way things are in the real world of technology.

A Radar do not lie!

[Ra_Sun-God]

But the number of UFO's have increased over time right?

The number of UFO sightings have indeed increased over the time, and there will be even more

[Ra_Sun-God]

How do we know that these are metallic if we are to go with ET (suspending all rational thought for a few of them, too) over the more prosiac explanations?

This link http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0509/ROSWELL-DEBRIS.php says that the Roswell Debris Confirmed as Extraterrestrial:

ROSWELL DEBRIS CONFIRMED AS EXTRATERRESTRIAL: Lab Located, Scientists Named

by Anthony Bragalia

Posted: 11:44 May 26, 2009

Newly discovered documents reveal that in the months immediately following the purported 1947 UFO crash at Roswell, secret government studies began on a material that was previously unknown to science. The "memory metal" that was studied precisely matches some of the debris material reported by several witnesses to the crash. Evidence shows that -under military direction- these unique metal studies were undertaken by a contracted laboratory that possessed advanced technical capabilities that the U.S. government itself did not have at the time. A former high-level scientist employed by the involved laboratory has offered a confession that he was tasked to study the crashed UFO material. Information provided by two U.S. Air Force Generals also offers direct support for this discovery.

The documents suggest that after the crash, the US government attempted to develop a unique material that is today referred to as memory metal. This shape-recovery alloy was reported by several witnesses to the Roswell crash in the summer of 1947. The lightweight "morphing" material was able to be crumpled or deformed and then return itself instantly and seamlessly to its original state. The metallurgical discoveries that resulted from these studies were then "seeded" for further technology development to other government agencies (including NASA) and through a series of military contracts to universities and industry.

The laboratory contracted by Wright Patterson Air Force Base to perform these studies was Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, OH. It has been credibly reported that Wright Patterson Air Force Base was the very base where the Roswell UFO debris was flown after the crash.

And then U.S. Air Force use similar material technology of today that is similar to Roswell alien debris (link below):

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

A Radar do not lie!

I'll leave the obvious flaw in that statement for somebody else to pounce on

Have you actually read the debate? If you have, perhaps you can clear up that point of confusion of how the radar determines intelligence.

Because no matter how many times I read it, I still can't actually see any explanation other than it needs human interpretation of the data to arrive at that conclusion.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Evangium

[Ra_Sun-God]

Go and watch the youtube video, paying careful attention to the statements used to support 'the facts' that mainstream science has it wrong and is misleading us, the sheeple, with their dogmatic thinking/campaign to maintain our ignorance of their ignorance, then go watch a few 'saucers have landed' reality videos and note the similarity of their supporting statements... Or, to ease your confusion, since I can see you sitting there wondering what the simlarity between a huge electrical discharge and an alien spacecraft is, not the descriptions of the phenomena, but rather the background 'noise' they use to make their cases more persuasive. Things like- 'witnessed by pilots' 'scientists admit in a report..' and that kind of stuff.

Persuasive? Why not? They can't help what they have witnessed, can they?

Then you also mention >Things like "Witnessed by pilots" scientists admit in a report<, and so what? Is there something wrong with that?

I give you some "Witnessed by pilots"

And that link show that A huge UFO and two smaller UFO's that followed a JAL Boeing 747 and a KC-135 and another passenger flight too, and guess what, these UFO's was also on the Radar, so it was not only pilots witnessed those UFO's but also appeared on the Radar as well. So please don't call these pilots and Radar Liars.

Here's some other pilots who witnessed something odd sightings too:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4468185100897567649

http://ufos.about.com/od/ufofolkloremythle.../russia1989.htm And this UFO crash in Russia in 1989 did in fact had 3½ to 4 feet tall ET's inside, two of them were dead, one was still alive. That UFO was chased by some MIG-25's before the UFO crashed. And guess what caused the crash this time, the MIG-25's shot at it! And this ET-spacecraft was not advanced enough to avoid Earthly missiles! So those ET species may not had crafts that is advance enough.

And the Military doctors may had made some alien autopsies, try check these autopsies out:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/38...raphic_Content/

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

Persuasive? Why not? They can't help what they have witnessed, can they?

Then you also mention >Things like "Witnessed by pilots" scientists admit in a report<, and so what? Is there something wrong with that?

I give you some "Witnessed by pilots"

And that link show that A huge UFO and two smaller UFO's that followed a JAL Boeing 747 and a C-135 and another passenger flight too, and guess what, these UFO's was also on the Radar, so it was not only pilots witnessed those UFO's but also appeared on the Radar as well. So please don't call these pilots and Radar Liars.

Yeah, that's the whole point, the argument isn't based on any evidence that ET (from outer space) is the correct answer to the question, it all comes down to how persuasive the speaker is. Unfortunately trying to build the kind of credibility into the argument that these guys do only preaches to the choir (or to put another way, the used car salesman telling you why this model is the one for you).

Telling the scientific community that it's a fact because it's been witnessed by pilots and some scientist may have admitted a personal opinion that the hypothesis is plausible, and intergrating into the line of argument that science has got it wrong before, isn't by any means close to establishing proof.

[bmk1245]

[...]

http://ufos.about.com/od/ufofolkloremythle.../russia1989.htm And this UFO crash in Russia in 1989 did in fact had ET's inside, two of them were dead, one was still alive. That UFO was chased by some MIG-25's before the UFO crashed.

From the same link:

The problem with this case is that there has been no information supplied on who the three men represent, and nothing about their character or background, and their source for the information. With only the small group of three men supplying all of the information, and no documentation or other evidence to support their claims, the case of the Russian crash and retrieval of 1989 must remain in the area of folklore.

Thats it - fairy tale.

[Ra_Sun-God]

Yeah, that's the whole point, the argument isn't based on any evidence that ET (from outer space) is the correct answer to the question, it all comes down to how persuasive the speaker is. Unfortunately trying to build the kind of credibility into the argument that these guys do only preaches to the choir (or to put another way, the used car salesman telling you why this model is the one for you).

Telling the scientific community that it's a fact because it's been witnessed by pilots and some scientist may have admitted a personal opinion that the hypothesis is plausible, and intergrating into the line of argument that science has got it wrong before, isn't by any means close to establishing proof.

Could these UFO's then be man-made? I very doubt they are man-made, especially when thinking about their maneuvre movements up to for example 25,000 miles per hour at low altitude that not Earthly crafts are able to make......

Oh you do this rolleeyes sign, well then I also will do that too:

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

Persuasive? Why not? They can't help what they have witnessed, can they?

So please don't call these pilots and Radar Liars.

Also in reply to your above post

Again, have you actually read the debate? Or perhaps you can explain how radar accomplishes the identification of a unidentified ariel phenomena as ET's spaceship on your own? Again ->

The simple fact that you are starting to dig into the troll's bag of tricks and play the emotive card of "Have you stopped beating your wife, Mr. Smith" (in your case "Are you calling these respected citizens liars?"), suggests that you really have no real insight into the topic and merely go for the brian mush that turns up in the google top 20. Of course you could try and prove me wrong here and actually in your own words attempt to explain how it is that nuts'n'bolts spaceships (despite the many aspects of reality the enigma defies) is the only correct answer, thereby allowing us to exclude everything from the prosiac to alternative theories (EDE's for example). Of course you still have to prove it without resorting to false arguments that all those who are 'against' the ETH either don't believe UFOs exist and dismiss them as fairytales/lights in the sky or assume that they are of earthly origin (black ops, dellusions).

And if that's too much of a stretech, try this little thinking exercise -

Why was the conclusion reached in the original ETH that these UFOs were under the control of biological, extraterrestrial entities? What social, technological and political factors from that period of history could have influenced the thinking of the scientists who developed the hypothesis? Has the hypothesis been satisfactorilly proven enough that it is a now a factual conclusion, either by Scientific or Historic method?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Evangium

[Ra_Sun-God]

From the same link:

Thats it - fairy tale.

Well well well, Fairy tale? Well maybe the KGB maked sure to kill these three guys and erased their names and background.

Just take a close look at the Shadow Government "Majestic 12" they hired someone to kill first hand witnesses if they don't keep their mouths shut! Just like when they hired some to kill some first hand witnesses because they could not keep their mouths shut because they wanted to hold a Conference about it but "Majestic 12" would not allow that like mentioned from this video

And guess what, "Majestic 12" Covered it up by making an Motorbike accident to cover up that "Majestic 12" hired someone to shoot or use a knife or hold him and put a plastic-bag over his head to kill the person, and then make a cover up story to the News Papers that the person died in a Motorbike accident. And guess what, I don't blame "Majestic 12" to kill first hand witnesses if they don't keep their mouths shut Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Ra_Sun-God]

Could these UFO's then be man-made? I very doubt they are man-made, especially when thinking about their maneuvre movements up to for example 25,000 miles per hour at low altitude that not Earthly crafts are able to make......

Here is another UFO that first dematerialize and fly away at extremely high speed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQN9v5y1cM

[behaviour???]

What do you think about the 1952 washington flap

Thanks

B???

[Ra_Sun-God]

Or perhaps you can explain how radar accomplishes the identification of a unidentified ariel phenomena as ET's spaceship on your own? Again

Oh yes, this link http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm says:

Radar Cases

Radar sightings of UFO's are remarkably common, and also the most authentic. The word of expertly trained operators, backed up by tangible echo returns from unidentified intruders is hard to deny. In many cases these bizarre blips that suddenly invade military and civil radar screens are seen to execute manoeuvres completely beyond the abilities of any known aircraft. Ground speeds of up six thousand m.p.h are nothing unusual, and as if to add further credence to these incidents, many of these 'radar visuals' as they are called, have been simultaneously witnessed by naked eye observers, both on the ground and in the air!

And this link http://www.nicap.org/0450-74dir.htm says:

Pease AFB Radar Tracks UFO

New Hampshire

September 20, 1961

Francis Ridge:

Most of the time Project Blue Book wrote off important UFO cases, many even involving good radar contacts. This may be one time they were right. It occurred near, both in location and time, to the now-famous Betty & Barney Hill abduction, but off by 50-150 miles.

May 1974: Air Command & Staff College Research Study Report No. 0450-74:

"The time that the Hills spent aboard the spacecraft could very well explain the two hours of their trip which were previously unaccounted for. Assuming the examinations did take two hours, and the UFO left shortly after releasing the Hills, an eerie time correlation can be drawn between the Hills' reported midnight sighting and the UFO tracked by Pease AFB radar at 2:14 a.m. "

And this link http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1208/dreamland.html describes about some Radar observations and a Former Military girl that got raped by some High security people and a Grey at the time she was on duty at Nellis AFB Radar

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

Oh yes, this link http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm says:

Radar Cases

Radar sightings of UFO's are remarkably common, and also the most authentic. The word of expertly trained operators, backed up by tangible echo returns from unidentified intruders is hard to deny. In many cases these bizarre blips that suddenly invade military and civil radar screens are seen to execute manoeuvres completely beyond the abilities of any known aircraft. Ground speeds of up six thousand m.p.h are nothing unusual, and as if to add further credence to these incidents, many of these 'radar visuals' as they are called, have been simultaneously witnessed by naked eye observers, both on the ground and in the air!

Nice try but, fission mailed

I've bolded the applicable part. Now this should be a liitle bit easier for you. What are the expertly trained operators expertly trained in? Is it -

a. The identification of alien spacecraft on the radar screen; or

b. The interpretation of the radar returns of more 'earthly' phenomena and objects?

If you're still stumped, there is a link in my signature that might help you out.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Evangium

[Ra_Sun-God]

Nice try but, fission mailed

I've bolded the applicable part. Now this should be a liitle bit easier for you. What are the expertly trained operators expertly trained in? Is it -

a. The identification of alien spacecraft on the radar screen; or

b. The interpretation of those radar returns of more 'earthly' phenomena and objects?

If you're still stumped, there is a link in my signature that might help you out.

Nice try, but your mission failed

These Radar observations still explain that UFO's extremely high speed and maneuvre is "Not of this Earth" You forgot that one, did'nt you?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[DONTEATUS]

Its getting time for a New Abducton please?

[Evangium]

Nice try, but your mission failed

These Radar observations still explain that UFO's extremely high speed and maneuvre is "Not of this Earth" You forgot that one, did'nt you?

Yes, I'm sure they do. Not at all like "Not of this earth" could ever be anything less than a concrete definition of anything but an alien spaceship. Ah well,

[Ra_Sun-God]

Yeah, that's the whole point, the argument isn't based on any evidence that ET (from outer space) is the correct answer to the question, it all comes down to how persuasive the speaker is. Unfortunately trying to build the kind of credibility into the argument that these guys do only preaches to the choir (or to put another way, the used car salesman telling you why this model is the one for you).

Telling the scientific community that it's a fact because it's been witnessed by pilots and some scientist may have admitted a personal opinion that the hypothesis is plausible, and intergrating into the line of argument that science has got it wrong before, isn't by any means close to establishing proof.

Are you saying that these UFO observers are used car salesmen who says >>This model is the best for you!<<? I don't believe your ****

Once again: These UFO observers both human eye and Radar observations can't help what they had witnessed. And guess what, these Radar observations about UFO's are still UFO's that make maneuvres that is "Not of this Earth".......

Edited July 13, 2009 by Saru
Edited for profanity, please don't deliberately bypass the filter

[TSS]

It's kinda comforting in a weird kind of way to see that no matter how long I spend away from this forum, 'leaps of faith' is still the best evidence to support the ETH.

[Ra_Sun-God]

Yes, I'm sure they do. Not at all like "Not of this earth" could ever be anything less than a concrete definition of anything but an alien spaceship. Ah well,

Well does the Earth have crafts that can fly 25,000 miles per hour at very low altitude for example?

Well does the Earth have crafts that suddenly change very sharp angle directions at extremely high speed that would kill humans?

These alien spacecrafts may have found a way to make all these extreme maneuvres at extremely high speed by using a technology so they don't get kill, don't you think?

I'm afraid to disappoint you, but humans don't have such technology. And if humans don't have such technology then who have it then? Well propably not the apes, right? Let me guess, most likely highly advanced beings who know about such advanced technology I guess, and there are propably lots of others out there who will agree with me.....

Edited July 13, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

Well does the Earth have crafts that can fly 25,000 miles per hour at very low altitude for example?

Well does the Earth have crafts that suddenly change very sharp angle directions at extremely high speed that would kill humans?

These alien spacecrafts may have found a way to make all these extreme maneuvres at extreme speed by using a technology so they don't get kill, don't you think?

Much better. See what a difference adjusting the tone of your posts does?

First of all, I don't fall into the catagory of skeptic/believer who subscribes to the whole 'secret human tech' argument. To me, many of the stories point well away from kind of physical technology, human or alien.

Part of problem that I, and former ETH proponents such as Hynek and Vallee ,have with the nut's'n'bolts hypothesis is that it excludes all but a few cases and even then for some of them, the conclusion of ET and spaceship is forced to fit the data.

Then there is the issue with the apparent abandonment of reality as we know it by these so-called crafts. Add to that the fact that in many cases we see descriptions of technology that is only slightly more advanced than our own, and it becomes clear that we haven't really moved away from the drawing board enough to be able to state "Nut's'bolts Spacecraft Piloted by ET's who may have similar, albiet more advanced, intelligence to our own" as the only certain conclusion.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Evangium

[Evangium]

It's kinda comforting in a weird kind of way to see that no matter how long I spend away from this forum, 'leaps of faith' is still the best evidence to support the ETH.

Kind of comforting in a popcorn'n'cheesey movies at home kind of way

[Ra_Sun-God]

Much better. See what a difference adjusting the tone of your posts does?

First of all, I don't fall into the catagory of skeptic/believer who subscribes to the whole 'secret human tech' argument. To me, many of the stories point well away from kind of physical technology, human or alien.

Part of problem that I, and former ETH proponents such as Hynek and Vallee ,have with the nut's'n'bolts hypothesis is that it excludes all but a few cases and even then for some of them, the conclusion of ET and spaceship is forced to fit the data.

Then there is the issue with the apparent abandonment of reality as we know it by these so-called crafts. Add to that the fact that in many cases we see descriptions of technology that is only slightly more advanced than our own, and it becomes clear that we haven't really moved away from the drawing board enough to be able to state "Nut's'bolts Spacecraft Piloted by ET's who may have similar, albiet more advanced, intelligence to our own" as the only certain conclusion.

Thanks

Yah, I will do something about my adjustings, and thanks for the help.

[Evangium]

Thanks

Yah, I will do something about my adjustings, and thanks for the help.

No worries. Try not to fall into the old guard's thinking that there are only 2 types of people in the debate - Those who know the truth and those who like swamp gas - and you'll see that there are many other interesting possibilities to explore with this enigma