Big Bad Voodoo Posted October 3, 2013 #1 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) http://www.youtube.c...GnAuJM#t=03m22s Start at 3:22 http://www.ufoeviden...ses/case225.htm NORAD: Holy Sh#t! Can someone confirm this actually happened? Edited October 3, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted October 3, 2013 #2 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Can someone confirm this actually happened? It's on the internet, so of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted October 3, 2013 Author #3 Share Posted October 3, 2013 It's on the internet, so of course not. Because its on net its false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Reticulum Posted October 3, 2013 #4 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yeap... just hallucinations, or the like... just mad people. False. Just ask Psycho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 3, 2013 #5 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yeap... just hallucinations, or the like... just mad people. False. Just ask Psycho Swamp gas most likely. Because things like this: Are impossible and do not exist, do they.................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted October 3, 2013 #6 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Pretty much no UFO case is real they can all usually be explained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted October 3, 2013 #7 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Pretty much no UFO case is real they can all usually be explained Yes, usually. Pretty much. But not all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike G Posted October 3, 2013 #8 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Because its on net its false? Into strawman arguments much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 3, 2013 #9 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Are impossible and do not exist, do they.................................... More invention again. 'Long thin, cylindrical, with strobing lights in sequence and between 300 and 400 feet long" A Night Hawk stealth fighter also saw it. NORAD tracked it too, yet denied it later. Sound familiar? Listen to the recordings: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anaBdwIFltw[/media] If you continue to misrepresent cases, please expect to be challenged and debunked. Edited October 3, 2013 by zoser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 3, 2013 #10 Share Posted October 3, 2013 It was a UFO Could be anything ? Wouldn't you Love to Of Seen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 4, 2013 #11 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) More invention again. Solar powered planes are indeed an interesting invention, and we did not need ET to make those either. 'Long thin, cylindrical, with strobing lights in sequence and between 300 and 400 feet long" What is a plane? A long cylindrical object with strobing lights. And this is the description that you feel discounts a plane is it? Captain Tollefson left his seat to look, and he saw the left to right sequencing lights also. As the lightning flashed behind the lights, it silhouetted something that to the observers appeared to be a large, dark, cigar shaped object between 300 and 500 feet in length, depending on how far away it was. The 747-8 is about 250 feet long. But I rather like the tethered aerostat suggestion myself, there was lightning in the distance, and either it, or oscillations of the aerostat itself could have created the noted strobe effect. Not how he also noted flashing lights BEHIND the object, indicating the phenomena was possibly larger than the portion reported. What I am saying is terrestrial explanations exist, but the woo woo crowd deliberately avoid them and replace them with wild and unsupported exotic explanations. A Night Hawk stealth fighter also saw it. NORAD tracked it too, yet denied it later. Sound familiar? No, what are you insinuating? That NORAD are keeping aliens from you are you? Back to the US conspiracy nonsense are we? And you are wrong again anyway, they did not deny its presence at all, they said they misidentified the transponder signal. Your own link says this: The controller then contacted NORAD, who at first reported nothing on their radar at that location, then called back and said they had an unidentified return in that area, then called back again and said that the radar return had been a common small airplane with a malfunctioning transponder. Listen to the recordings: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anaBdwIFltw[/media] How about you read some of the links you left? If you continue to misrepresent cases, please expect to be challenged and debunked. You have never "debunked" a single post I have made ***SNIP*** Edited October 4, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf personal attack removed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 4, 2013 #12 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You have never "debunked" a single post I have made ***SNIP*** No plane looks like that. If pilots were really that prone to misidentifying objects they would not be fit to fly and the number of accidents would increase ten fold. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecoNoir Posted October 4, 2013 #13 Share Posted October 4, 2013 This is why I hate cases based purely on eyewitness testimony: everything is prone to interpretation. It's not even a case of witnesses lying. The human mind is horrible at memory, and is prone to alteration. It could be a simple case of possibly seeing a plane, they're heading back to the airport, somebody mentions "U.F.O." and boom! The person starts thinking. U.F.O. and their mind starts putting in details that weren't there. Not intentionally of course, but nonetheless it completely changes the dynamic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 4, 2013 #14 Share Posted October 4, 2013 This is why I hate cases based purely on eyewitness testimony: everything is prone to interpretation. Not when cases are well supported like this one is. Why do you think there have been so many pilot reports over the years? Put yourself in their position. Think of the fear factor caused by seeing something so out of the ordinary. Also think of how many have not reported them and ask yourself why. It's not even a case of witnesses lying. The human mind is horrible at memory, and is prone to alteration. It could be a simple case of possibly seeing a plane, they're heading back to the airport, somebody mentions "U.F.O." and boom! The person starts thinking. U.F.O. and their mind starts putting in details that weren't there. Not intentionally of course, but nonetheless it completely changes the dynamic! Pilots have an appalling memory? Really? I hope to God they don't. Plane controls, safety measures, route information..........before you shout 'computers' at the top of your voice, know that the training for pilot qualifications is very rigorous. Rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecoNoir Posted October 4, 2013 #15 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Not when cases are well supported like this one is. Why do you think there have been so many pilot reports over the years? Put yourself in their position. Think of the fear factor caused by seeing something so out of the ordinary. Also think of how many have not reported them and ask yourself why. Pilots have an appalling memory? Really? I hope to God they don't. Plane controls, safety measures, route information..........before you shout 'computers' at the top of your voice, know that the training for pilot qualifications is very rigorous. Rightly so. Well why would a pilot report that he's seeing things? He'd probably rather keep his job than give his employers reason that he may be losing it. My second point: No, I'm not saying pilots have appaling memory, I said memory is very prone to subtle suggestion. There was an experiment a few years back where people were shown a picture of themselves with Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The subjects were able to recall the everything about the moment perfectly. The problem? Bugs Bunny is owned by Warner Bros. and never has been a character at Disneyland. The subjects mind created a memory to fit "evidence". So the point is: if the mind can create a new memory from scratch, how hard would it be to suddenly go from lights to U.F.O? Especially nowadays. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 4, 2013 #16 Share Posted October 4, 2013 So Let it be written ,so Let it be a UFO . ? Hum where have I read that one? Must of been the Begats ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted October 28, 2013 #17 Share Posted October 28, 2013 1958: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted October 28, 2013 #18 Share Posted October 28, 2013 A balloon with strobe lights over a military area must be extraterrestrial because we cannot build a balloon with strobe lights. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 28, 2013 #19 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Shhh ! don't tell the Aliens ,If they ever really Invade we can just let the Air outta there rides ! Dohhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now