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 13
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

6,154 posts in this topic

Don't forget automobiles.

Nah, the UFO's are around, ET is the mind thing. I do not know a single person who has met ET, so I do not understand how the identification is made as ET.

Yes indeed, Bade is always missed. Very busy I believe.

I am very flattered and thank you for the kind words (incl. Big D.), but Bade is indeed incredibly busy these days. I have time to check in on the conversations and I must admit that I am very impressed with the quality of the research and result dissemination on display (you know who you are and what I am referring to) and I truly wish I could join, but I can simply not take the time out of my schedule these days to put in the time I would like to post adequately researched and worded posts.

I miss you all, but fear not. Bade has not left, he is following what is going on and waiting for more time to join you all :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure they shoot them but some do seem to flog the dead ones quite a bit.

:w00t::lol::rofl::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very flattered and thank you for the kind words (incl. Big D.), but Bade is indeed incredibly busy these days. I have time to check in on the conversations and I must admit that I am very impressed with the quality of the research and result dissemination on display (you know who you are and what I am referring to) and I truly wish I could join, but I can simply not take the time out of my schedule these days to put in the time I would like to post adequately researched and worded posts.

I miss you all, but fear not. Bade has not left, he is following what is going on and waiting for more time to join you all :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Gidday Mate!

I thought that might be the case, I have seen you lurking in the Science section. Good to know you are still around friend.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate!

I thought that might be the case, I have seen you lurking in the Science section. Good to know you are still around friend.

Cheers

Thanks Mate,

Still around, lurking here and there, but I hardly have time to formulate a single word post these days. Gotta finish a couple of projects and have a few new ones coming in. Happens every few years, sigh....but I truly enjoy the conversations as of lately. I must say that some of the analysis and data that has been presented is just incredibly detailed and well thought out *tips hat*. A true joy to read and take in!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mate,

Still around, lurking here and there, but I hardly have time to formulate a single word post these days. Gotta finish a couple of projects and have a few new ones coming in. Happens every few years, sigh....but I truly enjoy the conversations as of lately. I must say that some of the analysis and data that has been presented is just incredibly detailed and well thought out *tips hat*. A true joy to read and take in!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Even if it is just a brief visit, it is good to see you bade. :tu: Good luck with the projects! I can completely relate to work related distractions, believe me! :lol: Good thing I'm getting paid, or I'd tell them to take those projects up the... well, you get the picture. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was quite an article, thanks for posting the link mcrom. :tu:

That is NASA's LISA project isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with that as well. The 'Phoenix, Lights" were not aircraft either, and as I looked at the mountains near Phoenix from the airport last Sunday, , it was very clear that there was no way those lights were flares over the BGR.

In addition, the people of Phoenix made it very clear the lights were neither flares nor aircraft. One of the witnesses has said that the lights in March were the same as those in January and they were not flares.

Looking back into history, similar lights were also seen in other parts of the world and the United States.

I can't say that I'm surprised by this response. Unless someone comes out and says "hey, I think it was aliens!" you are likely to disagree. But no matter how many times you make the empty claim that "they weren't flares" you will fail to refute the multiple analyses that have been done to corroborate Maccabee's initial analysis unless you somehow manage to falsify it with verifiable data and a superior analysis. Just saying "no it wasn't" isn't falsification, it is denial.

As for the planes hypothesis, I concede that it is still up for debate. I'm personally convinced that the earlier sightings were planes, but I won't say definitively that we have irrefutable proof of this. Honestly, my thought is that they were high altitude supersonic planes in formation at 60-85 thousand foot altitude reflecting light from the setting sun to the west. The SR-71 was fully retired later that year, perhaps it was a V formation of those or some other next generation top secret aircraft reflecting sunlight much like an

times 5.

I'm speculating with the details, but there can be no doubt about the fact that the footage shot by Terry doesn't match with other witness accounts about there being a single craft. So either he captured something else entirely or human perception played the same kind of tricks it always seems to play when facing something unfamiliar or unexpected.

And no, I don't expect you to agree with any of this. Nor do I care if you do or not. :hmm: The lack of substance in your arguments speaks enough for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is NASA's LISA project isn't it?

Not sure to be honest. I'd never heard of it before, but after a brief perusal of LISA according to wiki, there are definite similarities. At the very least it is related in concept. Fascinating stuff I think! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I didn't want to take a chance and post that photo here since it was copyrighted, and corrected from 'copywrited, (drat, and double drat) 'because I got hit before by the Mods for doing so in the past. Looking down in the valley from the video, and closer to the mountains, we must remember that people down there and closer to those mountains, also watched the lights as well, so now, the viewing angle is going to increase.

I was down in the valley and closer to the mountains near Phoenix last Sunday, and I noted that the angle over the mountain crestline had indeed, increased from where the lights were originally recorded further away. The folks of Phoenix have said that the lights were not flares and that the lights were definitely uniformed in shape, like a lamp shade.

One of the witnesses I spoke with confirmed the object came in from Nevada. He was a former machinist who had done work for NASA.

Phoenix Lights Trailer:

.

Perhaps you missed the part where I asked you to explain in depth how you performed your analysis between the two photos? And the part where I asked you to provide the second photo? And to include math if possible? And to do something other than repeat the same inconsequential nonsense that you seem to so proudly display on a regular basis?

Why people commend you for incessantly bleating the same unsubstantiated sermons is beyond me, but oh well. If you think that you are going to convince anyone who isn't already in agreeance by using this type of unconvincing rhetoric, you are sadly mistaken.

Your Chicago picture is still completely worthless regarding this debate. If there is any value to be garnered from it, it is to educate your following about just how ridiculous your line of argument appears to be. I'm surprised that you haven't quietly abandoned this discussion like you did the "voice of MacArthur" debate.

Are you ever going to produce an explanation for the supposed relevance of that photo? If not, you might as well find something else to squawk over because you've lost this debate as far as I can tell. And you have no hope of winning it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very flattered and thank you for the kind words (incl. Big D.), but Bade is indeed incredibly busy these days. I have time to check in on the conversations and I must admit that I am very impressed with the quality of the research and result dissemination on display (you know who you are and what I am referring to) and I truly wish I could join, but I can simply not take the time out of my schedule these days to put in the time I would like to post adequately researched and worded posts.

I miss you all, but fear not. Bade has not left, he is following what is going on and waiting for more time to join you all :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Hey Badeskov,

I can't wait 'til you get the time to get back in action!

On the other hand it's good someone is busy, cause I certainly am not... LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was quite an article, thanks for posting the link mcrom. :tu:

cheers mate... glad you liked.... :)

That is NASA's LISA project isn't it?

houdido matey... :alien:

this one is different... they used the 'most perfect spheres ever made by humans' to prove your old man right... :P

Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

re lisa... from boon's link...

However, on April 8th 2011, NASA announced that it would likely be unable to continue its LISA partnership with the European Space Agency, due to funding limitations. ESA is planning to begin a full revision of the mission's concept commencing in February 2012.

<_<

though never get tired of this one... first heard about lisa here....

129150861840955570.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say that I'm surprised by this response. Unless someone comes out and says "hey, I think it was aliens!" you are likely to disagree. But no matter how many times you make the empty claim that "they weren't flares" you will fail to refute the multiple analyses that have been done to corroborate Maccabee's initial analysis unless you somehow manage to falsify it with verifiable data and a superior analysis. Just saying "no it wasn't" isn't falsification, it is denial.

As for the planes hypothesis, I concede that it is still up for debate. I'm personally convinced that the earlier sightings were planes, but I won't say definitively that we have irrefutable proof of this. Honestly, my thought is that they were high altitude supersonic planes in formation at 60-85 thousand foot altitude reflecting light from the setting sun to the west. The SR-71 was fully retired later that year, perhaps it was a V formation of those or some other next generation top secret aircraft reflecting sunlight much like an

times 5.

I'm speculating with the details, but there can be no doubt about the fact that the footage shot by Terry doesn't match with other witness accounts about there being a single craft. So either he captured something else entirely or human perception played the same kind of tricks it always seems to play when facing something unfamiliar or unexpected.

And no, I don't expect you to agree with any of this. Nor do I care if you do or not. :hmm: The lack of substance in your arguments speaks enough for itself.

A formation of SR-71s? I would like to see that.

In other news, a B-29 over your place, D? I suppose that'd be, used to be the Confederate Air Force but they changed their name, i suppose in the interests of Political Correctness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you want the best evidence?

post-83836-0-13901700-1304605840_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, let me see if I've summarized the Phoenix flares properly.

1. It's possible to calculate how high the flares were based on the angle of view and the distance of the mountains from the point where the flares were seen. We may not be able to be 100 percent precise, but at least we might get a minimum value for the height.

2. The flares' rate of descent will be constant, just as any other rate of descent is constant. (Roughly 9.8 meters per second squared for acceleration due to gravity.) This also makes it fairly easy to estimate how far they've fallen. (One problem with this might be deflection of the trajectory due to wind, if any.)

3. The Air Force wasn't aware that the group had dropped flares until some time after they'd given their initial statement.

4. The guy who dressed up as an ET for the press conference is an idiot.

Hey someoldguy, I quite like the idea of a summary because there is so much info and calculations over many pages.

Ideally I would like to know from LS or Boon (as they have done the best calculations) a summary of events to include the following:

1. number of A10's involved in disposing of unused flares.

2. time of flares one and height, then the same for each other flare

3. what plane dropped which flares...i.e. plane a dropped flare 1 then plane b dropped the next 8? or whatever the case may be.

4. approximate distance to base from flare ignition and estimate on time taken to return and land 8 A-10's if this figure is correct.

If either of you or anyone else for that matter has any of these answers I would be grateful if you could post them.

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens, did this go onto the second page? :o Quick, someone, argue about FLARES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens, did this go onto the second page? :o Quick, someone, argue about FLARES!

im trying to :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. number of A10's involved in disposing of unused flares.

That story was made up by the AIr Force. Had the A-10s truly been dumping flares at hight atltitude, the Air Force would have acknowledge to the reporters when asked for an explanation. As it was, the Air Force denied any involvment and refused to get involved. Many weeks later, the Air Force came back and said, "oh yes, one of our A-10s was responsible for dropping flares from 6000 feet, which were ignited at 3000 feet.

When the Air Force saw that its expanation was flawed becauase there was no way that flares at 3000 feet could bee seen in Phoenix from behnid the mountain, the Air Force came back with yet another explanation that some A-10s were dropping flares from a HIGHER ALTITUDE because they can't land with flares aboard, however, that creates a bit of a problem when there were no A-10s airborned at 10 PM. Operatiing around the 10 PM time frame would have been cutting in on the Tucson folks quiet hours.

The Air Force was responsible, so let's do a recap.

The Air Force initially denied nvolvment, and then later the Air Force had said, that the "Phoenix Lights" were flares, which were dropped from 6000 feet and ignited at 3000 feet, and then, the Air Force came back and said, that A-10s dropped flares from a high altitude.

Those lights were NOT indicative of flare drops by multiple aircraft at night. You know, there is a very good reason why pilots wear sunglasses during the day, it helps their night vision.

Oh yes there was. No aircraft at Luke AFB were involved, so all the Luke PR folks Luke had to do was to make a simple phone call to DMAFB, and I am very sure they did just that. and yet many weeks later, the Air Force came back with flare drops at 6000 feet, not 15000 feet. Then, its explanation changed again when they determined their altitude figure was too low, so the Air Force had to make some adjustments to its altitude explanation and there you are, a full-blown Air Force cover-up on the level of the Roswell incident.

BTW, I happen to pass through Phoenix last night and there was no way that those lights were over the BGR.

2. time of flares one and height, then the same for each other flare

You might want to rework your figures to reflect a 50-mile distance from the camera because, I have seen aircraft moving at velocties faster than an A-10 from 40 miles distance.at a ;slower movement rate than what you see in the video, and another reason why I have said those lights were nowhere near the BGR, and now, someone has been talking 77 miles away, which makes it more compelling that those lights were nowhere near the BGR. Also:

That is one of the reasons why I told you to use the side profile depiction. On another note, if you look at that Chicago photo, you will notice the word: copywrite, however, I see no problem with anyone doing their own comparison on their own computers as I have. Just make the proper alignments between the two photos.

3. what plane dropped which flares...i.e. plane a dropped flare 1 then plane b dropped the next 8? or whatever the case may be.

On the contrary, it is right on the money. I did a side-by-side photo comparison with both photos lining up the horizons together proving that there was no way those lights were over the BGR, and I say lights because I already know those lights were not flares. Next, I matched the observations across the bay from my own home to verify the the observation in the Chicago photo, and further verification can be found in a side profile depiction I have been speaking of, and I didn't even add the curvature of the Earth in that side profile either.

Since most people of Phoenix, who have lived there for many years, and have never seen flares over the BGR before, Maccabee's figures should be re-examined in detail to see where he went wrong, especially since the BGR has been in operation for decades and where thousands of sorties and many flare drops are conducted each year.

That is yet, another major clue right there.

4. approximate distance to base from flare ignition and estimate on time taken to return and land 8 A-10's if this figure is correct.

And,

Why is it that those who have never seen flares before, are the very folks who are telling those who have, that the 'Phoenix Lights' were flares?

Simply amazing, and it shows a trend where some skeptics will never accept any evidence regards, anymore than those of the Flat Earth Society, that the Earth is round.

d060.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that seems like fight talk mcrom :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If either of you or anyone else for that matter has any of these answers I would be grateful if you could post them.

I sure don't. :D

I can see where the flares' rate of descent would be the same because their construction is the same and all of them would therefore have (approximately) the same terminal velocity because they were attached to parachutes.

Edited by someoldguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Little stealthy Chopper flew deep into the valley early in the morning Looking for its GPS feed target,

we all prayed that the mission would be a total success.

As the event unfolded the target was found although one of our secret toys was to hit hard the ground.

The Brave men all focused on the task,Bin Laden would be brought to his end With Expert Aim.

No claims of Hoorah ! or Boasting of Fame,This is what Seal team 6 do is Compleat there Aim.

The world is better now and onto the next Mission,This is why they Got the Premission.

My Hats off to our Commander and Chief ! I`ll vote again For Obama To Keep us Safe.

This is maybe why ET stays away They watch CNN each and Every Day !

We have a Long way to Go ! PEACE is a earned Way of Life this we all Know. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOAH - I miss a few days... 177 pages!!!!

I skipped from 167 to here - so if I missed anything directed at me, sorry - feel free to let me know!

I too would love to hear some of the skeptics opinions on this one....even better I would be interested in seeing them pose some questions to Gilfaer.

Pax, do you know where he got the name from? playing with the letters I can obviously extract 'liar' but cant do much with the other letters left G,F and E... :P

Yeh, he explained it to me once, I forget now though - Thinks it's made up from two different elvish words :)

Are we at the same site?

I suppose so - it has hundreds of accounts...

I think it does matter, how is a UFO that flies over a river, or lands on a River Bank a USO? Does USO not stand for Unidentified SUBMERGED Object? I find muddling the distinction very confusing to be honest. Environment will also have a huge impact on the possibility of type of phenomena, duration, and appearance.

Yes, I do think that most people that look at a thing and say ET are indeed ready to jump at a conclusion without bothering themselves with any level of investigation. I honestly feel that 99% of ET sightings are knee jerk reactions.

Ones I have seen where a person describes a water hose going into a machine I might point at Hydrogen prototypes. We have been messing with Hydrogen batteries since the '30's. Probably longer.

That site describes exactly what it means by the terms used and maybe I'm using USO too much, I mean the site is called 'water' ufo - so let's not quibble about the naming.

The point is there are amazing sightings which should be answered and so far, cannot.

You're wrong about the jumping to conclusions, the knee jerk reactions etc.

I've read far too many accounts of people like yourself and scientists who have (as I already wrote above) witnessed an object and thought of all the normal explinations FIRST and FOREMOST.

Not sure what you mean by 'hydrogen prototypes'...

Are you talking about weird disc shaped flying machines?

Yes, you have me called there, I do not see how any being can get around FTL, I think that is a pipe dream. Matter remains at a constant in the Universe. E=MC2 gains support as time rolls on. I do not think imagining the impossible is fruitful. To me, one might as well look forward to basking on the surface of the sun naked. Not to be rude but do you have a good understanding of Einsteins theories?

*LOL*

My mind boggles that you are so sure.

Yes I understand Einstein's theories but I am not so closed minded as to assume there is no way AROUND it!

I have never said I believe we can break the laws of physics, I have only said that I'm open to the possibility that their may be a way around it (like wormhole theories or an artificial means with similar results).

I do not call the breaching at beaches "odd behaviour" I would label it as illogical, which I also feel defies the ideal of an intelligent species.

Inter-dimensional as described by Jacques Vallee is an ideal I do not know enough about to comment on but I do find his theories encouraging and beyond the square. Be he right or wrong, I think this is the sort of thinking that will move an understanding closer.

I know little of Gilafer, in fact had I not visited the Abductee thread out of boredom yesterday I would not know who you are talking about. Again I do not know enough about the character to comment but I am extremely dubious on abduction tales.

Peopl who do give me hope that we may have contact one day are the likes of Stephen Hawking, and their (what I find) More rational approach to a logical sequence of events that one might expect from an intelligent species, and non intelligent species. I bought his latest series Into The Universe last night. Looking forward to viewing that.

Like I said - no point in speculating about why they do what they do....

I'm disappointed you like Hawking. After he said that we should be scared of aliens (if they came), I lost a lot of respect for him.

I've explained in other threads why I think that is the most ludicrous and illogical (hardly intelligent) suggestion.

I think then it would be best to single them out, like I said, I find the ideal of any UFO in the vicinity of water being called a USO rather confusing. I get the impression that the site makes a distinction where there is none.

Sorry, I don't think I'll ever be able to do that - same as with BE thread. I don't have the kind of memory to recall specific cases to be able to quote them when needed and I don't have the time to go and find, cut n paste them.

If you read all the cases at the water ufo site, you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about.

I guess we can put that down to USO/UFO confusion. That site calls any UFO that flies over a glass of water a USO.

Are we talking of the same site? I found many at the waterufo site to be called submarines, some were even explained, not sure why there were listed, some underwater, as per above examples, and some just go near water.

Some that I did find an unusual instance I have to say were mirrored at the Hessdalen project.

Could you please point at the section where you see these more intriguing instances, and perhaps post one or two samples?

Sorry, I don't think I'll ever be able to do that - same as with BE thread. I don't have the kind of memory to recall specific cases to be able to quote them when needed and I don't have the time to go and find, cut n paste them.

If you read all the cases at the water ufo site, you'll see plenty of what I'm talking about.

<sighs> I will if you really really want me to - but seriously - you can pick one or two yourself - there's tonnes of them! :)

Thanks for taking the time to reply mate ;) The pleasure is shared.

Cheers.

Ditto! Again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey someoldguy, I quite like the idea of a summary because there is so much info and calculations over many pages.

Ideally I would like to know from LS or Boon (as they have done the best calculations) a summary of events to include the following:

1. number of A10's involved in disposing of unused flares.

2. time of flares one and height, then the same for each other flare

3. what plane dropped which flares...i.e. plane a dropped flare 1 then plane b dropped the next 8? or whatever the case may be.

4. approximate distance to base from flare ignition and estimate on time taken to return and land 8 A-10's if this figure is correct.

If either of you or anyone else for that matter has any of these answers I would be grateful if you could post them.

Thanks in advance.

1. I'm not sure, I haven't looked into this yet, but I think it may have been mentioned somewhere along the way in one of the many resources I've looked at.

2. Do you mean time of day? Or how long between the appearance of each flare? And altitude of flares at point of appearance vs disappearance? Working on confirming all of that in a more organized and clear way, but slow going. If time of day... it was about 10 PM. ;)

3. No idea.

4. Have yet to look that up... give me a moment... about 110 miles from the last flare dropped to Davis–Monthan AFB in Tucson. Not sure how long it would take to fly that, but at the estimated airspeed of 200-300 MPH, not very long. Less than a half hour most likely. Maybe around 20 minutes, give or take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I'm not sure, I haven't looked into this yet, but I think it may have been mentioned somewhere along the way in one of the many resources I've looked at.

2. Do you mean time of day? Or how long between the appearance of each flare? And altitude of flares at point of appearance vs disappearance? Working on confirming all of that in a more organized and clear way, but slow going. If time of day... it was about 10 PM. ;)

3. No idea.

4. Have yet to look that up... give me a moment... about 110 miles from the last flare dropped to Davis–Monthan AFB in Tucson. Not sure how long it would take to fly that, but at the estimated airspeed of 200-300 MPH, not very long. Less than a half hour most likely. Maybe around 20 minutes, give or take.

A flight from Phoenix to Tucson in a regular plane is about a half hour. I'm assuming any aircraft from the USAF could and would make it faster than that...

Hope this helps as I just flew this two weeks ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flight from Phoenix to Tucson in a regular plane is about a half hour. I'm assuming any aircraft from the USAF could and would make it faster than that...

Hope this helps as I just flew this two weeks ago!

Cool :) Did you happen to see any ET piloted flares on your trip? :w00t:

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 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.