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 6
zoser

Tantalising Testimony

5,543 posts in this topic

A reflection?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what?

,... of an alien starship. :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,... of an alien starship. :tsu:

I think what he was trying to say is that it could have been a reflection of something inside the plane? That doesn't quite explain the UFO report by the USAF though does it?

So back to my question Haz; what are the options?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what he was trying to say is that it could have been a reflection of something inside the plane? That doesn't quite explain the UFO report by the USAF though does it?

So back to my question Haz; what are the options?

Im thinking reflection aswell. Look how out of focus the "object" is compared to the rest of the picture.

As for the UFO report,... Where is it again?

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a reflection of the blank space between the left & right ears. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a reflection of the blank space between the left & right ears. :clap:

I don't think you are doing yourself justice Don!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries '63 - sleep tight :tu:

But to get back to your question, it is hard to point to anything specific as there is typically little data to go on. But one of the more famous ones that have been discussed to death here is the UFO flap in Belgium. Now it is pretty much agreed that it was abnormal weather that was the cause of that.

The infamous triangle image has been confirmed as a hoax. Even the most staunch of proponents back then, Prof. Meessen acknowledged that it was most likely mirages playing with the radar systems.

Besides that, we know a lot more of our atmosphere than we did back in the 1950/60s and we certainly have much better equipment than back then and much, much smaller error rates (although errors still occur).

The sad thing is that we cannot go back and analyze again as we cannot reproduce the same condition however much we would like to. We can only look at what we knew back then and what we know now and then apply some kind of probability factor of our own.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Hi,I slept well and thanks for the reply Badeskov!

I understand the problems with retrospective analysis, and that is why I was so surprised at your statement of...

"Yet, as the years has gone by we have learned a lot about some natural phenomena that perfectly fits some of the typical 1950/60s UFO "...

And that is why I requested samples from you that we could all mull over . I did suspect however that this may prove a little more arduous than you thought . And I suspect is the reason that you leapt straight to the 1989/90 Belgian UFO flap!..Which of course is a bit off-target, specially as you then go on to describe this remarkable event [or chain of events[ as done and dusted and the whole five months of incredible sightings that were officially-reported [affidavit-backed!] by 'literally thousands' of independent witnesses..[many of them military, medical,gendarmerie and all in all kinds of stand-up reliable types] ...was nothing more than " abnormal weather"..?

If you are hinting that the "strange weather" conditions were to blame for the intriguing RADAR returns during the Belgian air force interception attempt?...Then that is a possibility!...But not one that Major General Wilfred de Brouwer or SOBEPS considers to be the definitive answer!,,,And Meesen himself states that ..

" It was evidently impossible that an object could penetrate the ground, but it was possible that the ground could act as a mirror." Meessen explained how the high velocities measured by the Doppler radar of the F-16 fighters might result from interference effects. He points out, however, that there is another radar trace for which there is no explanation to date. As for the visual sightings of this event by the gendarmes and others, Meessen suggests that they could possibly have been caused by stars seen under conditions of "exceptional atmospheric refraction." ...Notice the use of the word "Possibly"!

...By no means proof!!...and doesn't even attempt to explain what all of those thousands of witnesses on the ground were seeing!?

And here's what Maj Gen de Brouwer has to say on the matter...

"What impressed me the most were the witnesses, some of whom I know personally and convinced me that, in fact, something was going on. These were credible people and they told clearly what they saw.

We always look for possibilities which can cause errors in the radar systems. We can not exclude that there was electromagnetic interference, but of course we can not exclude the possibility that there were objects in the air. On at least one occasion there was a correlation between the radar contacts of one ground radar and one F-16 fighter. This weakens the theory that all radar contacts were caused by electromagnetic interference. If we add all the possibilities, the question is still open, so there is no final answer."

So you see Badeskov, you'll have to forgive me for not agreeing that "The Belgian UFO Flap" was as mundane as "Abnormal Weather "!

But if you could think of any other cases where new data on ' natural phenomena' being the probable culprit of any old classical UFO sensation/report/testimony etc, [preferably from the 50'/60's, as advances in scientific understanding of weather conditions and atmospheric anomalies will be much greater from that period .] then please post them thanks! :tu:

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im thinking reflection aswell. Look how out of focus the "object" is compared to the rest of the picture.

As for the UFO report,... Where is it again?

If you had listened to Hastings in the video, you'd know that it wasn't a reflection of anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at MacG's photo what realistically are the options?

It's a very advanced aircraft of some kind that almost collided with their plane.

When you ask yourself who would be flying an aircraft like that, the options are very limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video starts out with the David Hastings UFO, and if that thing was one of ours, then we were really flying around something very advanced back then in 1987. If it wasn't one of ours, then who knows what it was or where it came from?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFaNvfRjnaw&feature=g-vrec[/media]

Hey MacGuffin, that is a mighty fine photograph that you posted buddy! :tu: ..And along with the pilot David Hastings; testimony on your video, I find this a great catch and an interesting case.

Firstly, I have to say that my initial thoughts when seeing the photograph were along the internal-reflection lines,...but after seeing the video I have ruled that improbable.The fact that the witness comes across as a decent and reliable figure seems to negate the outright hoax possibility imo.

So just what exactly did Mr Hastings and his co-pilot see and photograph?...Atmospheric anomaly?...UFO...? or Top Secret military-project...?

I found the fact that the documentary makers were pushing the 'Triangular or Delta-Wing' shape on the object, even though I never heard the witness describe it as such..well,.. on camera anyway!

But if that was indeed the original description given for the shape of the object, then perhaps one of those frequently talked about secret USAF developments might prove to be a sensible answer!?...But if so, then the capabilities as described by the witness are pretty astounding don't you think?

As for atmospheric anomaly?...Nothing remotely scientific to say,.. but I think not!

And then to the other 'obvious possibility', ..Extraterrestrial Craft, [there i've gone and said it!...cue the cries of ..idiot! lol.]..Well the witness did mention a few of the classic pointers. Oscillating flight, Tremendous speed, Pacing the plane etc.

Well who knows?...Whatever it was, it was a pretty good sighting and photograph, and goes into the "damned-interesting tray"!! :tu:

Cheers buddy.

Edited by 1963
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had listened to Hastings in the video, you'd know that it wasn't a reflection of anything.

Im sorry, but I stopped watching your videos a LONG time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey MacGuffin, that is a mighty fine photograph that you posted buddy! :tu: ..And along with the pilot David Hastings; testimony on your video, I find this a great catch and an interesting case.

And then to the other 'obvious possibility', ..Extraterrestrial Craft, [there i've gone and said it!...cue the cries of ..idiot! lol.]..Well the witness did mention a few of the classic pointers. Oscillating flight, Tremendous speed, Pacing the plane etc.

Well who knows?...Whatever it was, it was a pretty good sighting and photograph, and goes into the "damned-interesting tray"!! :tu:

Cheers buddy.

Hi 1963,

David Hastings and his co-pilot actually described it as a cigar-shaped object, not a triangle, and were very concerned that it almost collided with them--basically came out of nowhere in less than a second and almost him their plane. According to this article, the correct date of the sighting is September 9, 1985, not 1987 as I wrote earlier.

"One incident involved David Hastings, a British pilot pictured below, who, along with his co-pilot, David Paterson, was flying a Cessna Skymaster plane over the Mojave Desert in America on Sept. 9, 1985.

s-PILOTDAVIDHASTINGS-large300.jpg?4

"We were sitting there enjoying the sunshine when we both suddenly saw this speck out on the horizon at our 12 o'clock position," Hastings told HuffPost.

"This speck suddenly grew extremely quickly until we saw this huge shadow go over the top of us," he recounted. "But the most amazing thing about it was there was no noise and absolutely no movement or turbulence at all. We looked at each other, saying, 'What the hell was that?'"

At that point, both pilots felt that something was in the air off the port (left) side of their plane, but they couldn't see anything there. They agreed that they were able to sense something moving outside.

Hastings walked to the back of the plane, grabbed his camera and returned to the cockpit where he snapped two pictures out the window. All he was able to see in the camera viewfinder was the left wing of the plane and the ground below.

s-DAVIDHASTINGSUFO-large300.jpg?4

It was only after they returned to San Francisco and got the pictures developed that they knew they'd encountered something extraordinary.

"One picture showed what we expected to see -- the aircraft wing and the ground," said Hastings. "But in the second one, there was this [cigar-shaped] thing. We were both convinced that it was not a manmade object.

"Several pilots have seen UFOs in England, so it didn't surprise me, but I was surprised that we actually got a picture of it."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F08%2F28%2Fufo-sightings-british-civil-aviation-authority_n_1832289.html&ei=B-JMUIHlCIrQqgHPqYCICw&usg=AFQjCNGA1_3wg0YQKYVBjOHIfAu-V8YT8Q&sig2=FWalwrOPYYg2QfupRfdoaA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I stopped watching your videos a LONG time ago.

And that's why you are learning nothing! :w00t: ...sorry Haz!...couldn't resist! :passifier:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I stopped watching your videos a LONG time ago.

Well, that's your loss, but then you can't complain that I don't provide any evidence if you refuse to even look at it.

Frankly, I don't take any of your posts very seriously either, for obvious reasons. You are not here to have a genuine and honest discussion with anyone, and that has been obvious to me from the start.

See you around.

And that's why you are learning nothing! :w00t: ...sorry Haz!...couldn't resist! :passifier:

All I can say is that's another one of those guys I could do without.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MacGuffin said...

Hi 1963,

David Hastings and his co-pilot actually described it as a cigar-shaped object, not a triangle, and were very concerned that it almost collided with them--basically came out of nowhere in less than a second and almost him their plane. According to this article, the correct date of the sighting is September 9, 1985, not 1987 as I wrote earlier.

Yeah thanks MacG,...I got that article on another page!

I guess that the documentary makers were using a bit of 'poetic-license' from what they were seeing on the photograph!...But then I think that a 'V-shaped' craft could come across as a 'cigar-shaped' craft from certain vantage points!

And I forgot to mention that , "do you think that the fact that the US military man that borrowed the photographs for three days,..and then refused to comment at all, was any kind of pointer towards the object being one of theirs"?...or maybe not?

Cheers buddy.

Edited by 1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MacGuffin said...

Hi 1963,

David Hastings and his co-pilot actually described it as a cigar-shaped object, not a triangle, and were very concerned that it almost collided with them--basically came out of nowhere in less than a second and almost him their plane. According to this article, the correct date of the sighting is September 9, 1985, not 1987 as I wrote earlier.

Yeah thanks MacG,...I got that article on another page!

I guess that the documentary makers were using a bit of 'poetic-license' from what they were seeing on the photograph!...But then I think that a 'V-shaped' craft could come across as a 'cigar-shaped' craft from certain vantage points!

And I forgot to mention that , "do you think that the fact that the US military man that borrowed the photographs for three days,..and then refused to comment at all, was any kind of pointer towards the object being one of theirs"?...or maybe not?

Cheers buddy.

That's a possibility for sure, especially given it's location in there in the desert between California and Nevada--Edwards Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base, Groom Lake, etc, etc. A lot of secret stuff being tested out there in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still going on. I was out there in Nevada myself around that time and so was my father, but I can't claim that I ever saw anything like that.

Yeah I was in Nevada at that time, I remember that I had been down in Mexico and Central America before that and came up to Nevada in the spring of 1985, but I sure wish I had seen something like that!

If that was one of our experimental planes, then we really do have things that are far more advanced than most people are aware of.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I stopped watching your videos a LONG time ago.

That's a shame Haz; it means that you can't take part in the discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a shame Haz; it means that you can't take part in the discussion.

Uh huh, that's just a crying shame for sure. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a possibility for sure, especially given it's location in there in the desert between California and Nevada--Edwards Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base, Groom Lake, etc, etc. A lot of secret stuff being tested out there in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still going on. I was out there in Nevada myself around that time and so was my father, but I can't claim that I ever saw anything like that.

Yeah I was in Nevada at that time, I remember that I had been down in Mexico and Central America before that and came up to Nevada in the spring of 1985, but I sure wish I had seen something like that!

If that was one of our experimental planes, then we really do have things that are far more advanced than most people are aware of.

Strange that the cigar appeared just after the massive triangle as if it had ejected a probe to check out the plane. The cigar was no missile because it changed altitude in the lateral plain; also interesting was the comparison with the similar sighting in Guatemala was it? Excellent work MacG. :tu:

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what?

Good question. I apologize if I am wrong, but I went by this image McG posted:

0160563.jpg

That just looks like a kind of reflection to me. Especially I personally found a resemblance to the parts on the wing, which led me to believe that it could be a reflection in the windows of the aircraft.

Naturally I cannot tell what it is for sure.

Cheers ,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff

Good question. I apologize if I am wrong, but I went by this image McG posted:

0160563.jpg

That just looks like a kind of reflection to me. Especially I personally found a resemblance to the parts on the wing, which led me to believe that it could be a reflection in the windows of the aircraft.

Naturally I cannot tell what it is for sure.

Cheers ,

Badeskov

I have to agree that it does look like a reflection , If the picture was on its own I would have no problems with the " reflection " hypothesis .

My only draw back is the witness (s) testimonies , the way they describe the object coming from the 12 o’clock and sending a " shadow " over the plane , the credibility of the witness(s) .

With the location of the sighting it does smell military , my doubt would be that generally , from what I have read about ( A12 - U2 ETC ) the general idea was to stay far away from civilian planes as possible !

Interesting to say the least , great find as usual Mac .

TiP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a shame Haz; it means that you can't take part in the discussion.

Sure I can, all I have to do is watch it. But Im not going to,... I have seen to many of your videos to know that 99% of them are pure crap. A waste of time.

Sad really, as there is that one percent chance that could actually be genuine? Like a lawyer burying the evidence in a mountain of nonsense you are putting more mud in the waters of UFOology.

Why is anybodys guess.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday mate, like the good old times ay :)

Gidday Mate

Really, I wish it was. I find this place has been changing of late, and sadly, I feel not for the better. The entire forum is becoming just like this thread, drive by, heck, even Karl, a Mod of all people takes 6-8 weeks to get back to a thread and conversation, and even he is telling me I should spread myself around and post in more forums like he does, and he seems to be a Mod at all of them. These threads could run for years like that. I also find it very hard to reconcile bias in such a situation. I hope it gets more like the good old days where we had people like Peri and Drunken Parrot popping in regularly for a good joust with the philosophers of UFOlogy. Thank the Lord for Bade, Lost Shaman and your good self. I sure miss Boon these days. The more recent and what I would consider "very ordinary" cases that are seeing serious repetition are getting too long in the tooth to continue to hold amazement, I guess I feel a bit like the kid that found out Santa is not real.

not only is Joes case not solid. it doesnt exist. We have a few wishy washy statements in an article following an 'investigation' (maybe he did it whilst sitting in a bar somewhere).

Well, we both know you are 100% wrong there, it does exist and has been published time and again, and anyone can do a quick Google to verify that. Because you find the statements unconvincing does not eradicate them, you seem to be trying to circumvent proof in this instance to show the cameras were inadequate for the claims. They no longer exist, and have not done so for some time due to shipyard rebuilds, and they were featured extensively in historical record associated with the case, if you want to dismiss them, you need to do more than pretend they do not exist. The claim has been made, and it has not been torn down in 50 years. Therefore, it must be adressed. Aliens at Roswell are the biggest nonsense story I have ever heard, but the claim still needs to be adressed. And that is done in a critical manner.

And in fact I can help you, in my line of work, I design many CCTV installations. A few parameters and I could tell you what is possible and what is not. All I want from you is some specs and we can have a look at your personal discrepancies with the claim.

There isnt anything to be challenged, he said 'a nearby shipping yard' right? what one, who had cameras, why were they pointing to that spot? anyhow wont go ove rthis again, but bottom line is....I see nothing proving a camera existed let alone one was pointing and recording at the time, let alone Joe having access to this smoking gun that would expose this case....the case that made national news remember....great story....unless ofcourse his work was just fiction which is what it smells like to me. The toll booth operators has been countered many times, and them not 'reporting' (as opposed to seeing) anything is easily explainable. Again though why even mention them when you have the smoking gun Mr Joe....have another vodka :yes:

They were fixed cameras, and I doubt they were the only two. Ingalls had military contracts, security is a pre-requisite for the contract. If the cameras did not exist, they shipyard would not have had the contracts it did. Cameras would be required to be covering the perimeter.

The Toll Booth operators are simply further confirmation, in that anyone who should have seen something did not.

We know the night, the time, the place, the operators. Which Toll Booth operator has refuted the claims?

As for Vodka, I am sure Joe might have been able to abscond a tipple from Charlie ;)

really, what has he changed? the fact he didnt really faint.....he didnt say that to start with, Charlie said that Calvin fainted when they appeared. He may have come around soon after and then was paralysed and carried onto craft. His memory 20 years later (and maybe even at the time) thinks he never fainted......not a major discrepency at all. As for the bible elements etc....like I said someone who obviously wasnt the sharpest tool in the box may have had any kind of psychological problems over a 20 year span.

What we do know is he lied, and why did he lie? To look better, by his own admission.

How is that for a reference? Motive? Ego. WHy would someone hide something they were ashamed of? Ego.

The Bible element is not something gray, it's black and white. It has nothing to do with misinterpretation, the Aliens said we share the same God and the Bible is factual. The Bible is not factual. Snake Oil Salesmen aliens?

what cameras??? I havent seen or heard about any cameras....unless I am to take the word of some drunken reporter desperate for fame and fortune who has already been caught with his pants down as far as twisting the truth goes....the court agrees :)

The religous and bible elements I put down to severe psychological issues that have developed over many years...many years of having to live with something he could never understand......

The ones that made it to Joe's report, which you have protested, but not falsified.

All sources that I have seen say

A check of the security cameras at nearby Ingalls Shipyard, which were apparently in range, also drew a blank.
- LINK

Who checked it? Not up to me, I have the record that the action happened, I do not care who did it as the outcome remains the same.

not so much bad choice of words.....just very 'Klass' like :) I do admire the attempt. He says he did doesnt mean it happened again. the imminent fear felt was during a telepathic message, he ws returned unharmed so why fear it further....

No, no Klass tactics here, just basics. I was not trying to look at this character, just bewildered that someone who was frightened greatly would go back into the same situation voluntarily. I most certainly would not.

Why fear it further? He had a needle shoved into his John Thomas!!! Crikey mate! No more need be said!!

personally I would go back on board....why not....no harm done...many questions unanswered....etc etc :) maybe I am just sick/kinky :unsure2:

There was harm done???? that big needle!!!! and they are bloddy Bible Bashers! We even shut the door in the faces of earth men who Bible bash!

Nah, I would not be going on board when last time I was there someone stabbed me in the crown jewels.

You definitely are more "experimental" than I.

ummm, dont quite see how repeating an strange occurance during some alone time indicates personal issues.. if they had sexed and concocted a story then they would be somehting said in relation to this during this time...they would not continue with an act (an act I believe they were not capable of to start with)...

and there is no proof that the hypnosis was not carried out properly.

They started to appear to talk to themselves, even though both men were in the same room after a short while. Like they were coming to terms with what had happened individually. If this was an abduction, I would expect the opposite. Such traumatic condition would make bedfellows (excuse the pun) out of most acquaintances. Not in this case though. These men seemed to deal with a common experience differently.

I have no confidence in Hypnosis full stop. You would have to convince me that regressive Hypno-Therapy is not a complete sham to start with. Not just the individual, but the entire contingent of Hypno-therapists associated with regressive memory recovery. I think they let the entire field associated with the practise down.

who told them? everything I have read suggests the last peopel to make a call to the press would be the two men....

It was the next morning, and the Police were not at all happy about the press. Only the men and the Police knew of the incident the very next morning, and both men seemed agitated by description that morning as well.

Nobody else knew Q, it could only have been these two promoting their own story. There is nobody else.

scenario: you get abducted by ET...next day back at work....would you act normal? dont think so :no:

If it was traumatic I might take a day off, but I may not be able to depending on circumstances, work does not wait for me. I must work even when sick, deadlines do not accept excuses. I was lucky to get time of for my Fathers funeral. But I would have quit before I missed that. The stress would have been too much at the time.

Yes, I always act normal under any circumstances, a 30 million dollar design does not wait for the flu, death in the family, or personal matters, and the people spending the money do not give a hoot about what problems one might be facing. Big business is very impersonal. I had enough trouble getting time of for my Fathers Funeral. And that was cut short.

no, the parole officer and the owner of Larrys station both contacted the station whilst the duo were there being interogated. These are the only two main witnesses and they feature in the 17 page report by the airbase. These both corroborate the story, the rest of the witnesses I have ignored as they can be attacked and dismissed quite easily...as you have shown above, I dont think it is quite as easy to do so with teh parole officer or Larry....if it was the 'Klass' would have eaten them for breakfast.

What was the location of their sighting claims?

If they did not see the craft land, and carrot appendaged robots trundling out of it, how is that corroborating? What I can show is that more than those two reports came in, as people started to talk, the hype factor obviously went up. We have even seen this as far back as the Orson Wells debacle. I think you need some poetic license to call that corroboration.

:tu: on Venus.....I thought Phil tackled the lie detector not the hypnotist :unsure2: ???

Yes, you are right, sorry, I was just finishing a post of about Allagash and still had that one on the brain. But point remains, Phil only looked at his part of the investigation, and was happy with that. And he makes a good point, why were more experienced operators passed over for someone who had not even completed training?

Perhaps Phil figured if they cannot get that straight, it does not even warrant further investigation? It does look very suspicious on the surface, and I canot think why such a decision would be made.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the location of the sighting it does smell military , my doubt would be that generally , from what I have read about ( A12 - U2 ETC ) the general idea was to stay far away from civilian planes as possible !

Interesting to say the least , great find as usual Mac .

TiP.

yes, exactly. To say nothing of the fact that, 25 years or more on, none of these hypothetical super-mega aircraft apart from the F-117 have ever become public knowledge, and i'm afraid that, if they were apparently so cavalier about letting people see them, that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I can, all I have to do is watch it. But Im not going to,... I have seen to many of your videos to know that 99% of them are pure crap. A waste of time.

Sad really, as there is that one percent chance that could actually be genuine? Like a lawyer burying the evidence in a mountain of nonsense you are putting more mud in the waters of UFOology.

Why is anybodys guess.

:clap:

If I had to guess.... Based on the "evidence" he keeps posting, I would say that he is one of those nasty government agents spreading confusion and desinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.