The best evidence for aliens on Earth

[badeskov]

bolding mine

You're welcome Badeskov (and welcome back to the 'debate').

Thanks. Unfortunately we have a serious crunch at work these days and it was rather reluctantly I got sucked into it, but so it happened and it took all my time suddenly. And it still takes a lot of my time, so it will be another 14 days before I can really start engaging myself seriously again. That is unfortunately the price of high intensity research once in a while

It was indeed an interesting stroll down memory lane. I'd almost forgotten that the same method of proof that we, allegedly, ignore, proves that Noah's ark is real and in good condition on a mountain somewhere. So why do we of the more skeptical bent get told time and time again that when we do it, it's a case of comparing apples to oranges?

A stroll down memory lane is always fun, albeit in this case it shows some rather sad things at times. And we are not skeptically bent, we are evil debunkers hellbent on going against all that science (allegedly) already knows as fact (*cough*). This could be a lot more constructive if there was a willingness to really accept the scientific argumentation for what it is. However, the odds of that happening are probably rather slim and if it indeed happened, I would like to quote Jaylemurph from the Conspiracy threads:

Hmmm. A CT thread with people learning things and respectfully addressing each other. I suggest we have this stuffed and mounted.

--Jaylemurph

Now onto that bolding, and I'm putting this out to all, it seems pretty clear that the statement says that plasma doesn't account for all UFO sightings; so why is everyone posting in rebuttals that effectively boil down to "Plasma couldn't account for this particular case".

It is truly baffling. But I think the point of showing plasmas is lost on some people. Terrestrial plasmas certainly don't count for all of the sightings, we don't even know if it counts for any, although I would be very surprised if it didn't. However, the fact that such phenomena exists, exhibit some of the same behaviors as UFOs and that we really only learned the finer details about them during the last 20 years just illustrates that:

1) We constantly learn about our atmosphere and the Earth we live one

2) The last Earthly phenomenon hasn't been discovered yet

3) We have not, in any UFO case, proven that it is ET by the elimination of all other possibilities

..oh, and that

4) 40 year old reports on mirages and temperature inversions are obsolete and utterly irrelevant as pertains to this discussion.

After all Safe Skys' 'Fastwalker' DVD starts out by quoting that, since the late 1940's 150 million people have witnessed UFOs, and that there have been 20,000 confirmed landings (words to that effect). I'm no bookie, but I'd say that it's pretty good odds that those six or so cases can be accounted for as "such events are obviously not the explanation." Old UFOlogy jedi mind trick, that

Indeed. That is another one I cannot really understand, the space rocks and other debris accidentally flitting by a camera and immediately it can be (mis)construed as ET on a leisure trip to planet Earth (we must be their equivalent of either the Grand Canyon or a major theme/amusement park).

Essentially it's the argument version of a double negative, to respond with "Plasma can't account for this case". If you want to try and defeat the plasma argument, you're better off finding tha Caelistia link I posted earlier and working from there...

Yes, most certainly so.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

please read this alien file

Date:5 november 1975

Name:Travis Walton , Logger

Location:arizona,United States

Claim:he said that he saw a flying saucer hovering above the road as suddenly a laser beam belived to be errupted from the UFO shot him on the chest and he got deflected to the roadside

note:there are many otheralein files

source:THE ALIEN FILES by PAUL MCENVOY

As others have asked, a link would be nice. Otherwise it is not viable information. Oh, and a laser beam powerful enough to "deflect" him to the road side would have burned right through his chest and we wouldn't have this story in the first place.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[S2F]

As others have asked, a link would be nice. Otherwise it is not viable information. Oh, and a laser beam powerful enough to "deflect" him to the road side would have burned right through his chest and we wouldn't have this story in the first place.

Cheers,

Badeskov

True badeskov, I would imagine that any impact force from even a large laser would be negligible considering it is only a concentrated beam of light. Although I could be wrong.

[Evangium]

LOL... Ahhh, Badeskov. Where do I send the bill for cleaning the coffee, I spilled, off my computer?

You really should be careful where you point that wit of yours

Earth, an Alien Wonderland I Wonder if they are guilty of overselling seats as well, since their evolution parallels our own (apparently)...

edit:typo

Edited October 27, 2008 by Evangium

[TSS]

bolding mine

You're welcome Badeskov (and welcome back to the 'debate').

It was indeed an interesting stroll down memory lane. I'd almost forgotten that the same method of proof that we, allegedly, ignore, proves that Noah's ark is real and in good condition on a mountain somewhere.

So why do we of the more skeptical bent get told time and time again that when we do it, it's a case of comparing apples to oranges?

Now onto that bolding, and I'm putting this out to all, it seems pretty clear that the statement says that plasma doesn't account for all UFO sightings; so why is everyone posting in rebuttals that effectively boil down to "Plasma couldn't account for this particular case".

After all Safe Skys' 'Fastwalker' DVD starts out by quoting that, since the late 1940's 150 million people have witnessed UFOs, and that there have been 20,000 confirmed landings (words to that effect). I'm no bookie, but I'd say that it's pretty good odds that those six or so cases can be accounted for as "such events are obviously not the explanation." Old UFOlogy jedi mind trick, that

Essentially it's the argument version of a double negative, to respond with "Plasma can't account for this case". If you want to try and defeat the plasma argument, you're better off finding tha Caelistia link I posted earlier and working from there...

~Bolding mine~

The post I was originally responding to is:

Here I have to disagree. There has been a lot of reports, however, in my personal opinion more and more speaks towards natural phenomena rather than explanations of extraterrestrial origin.

The plasma theory was given as one example.

If more and more leads to natural phenomena then it seems reasonable to see how the plasma theory stands up to individual cases. For curiosity if nothing else.

If your going to make vague references to my posts then at least have the decency to take them in context to the post I was enquiring about.

[badeskov]

What are you talking about, "terrestrial plasmas?" Are you referring to fire? And atmospheric plasmas? Commonly known as lightning bolts? Can you cite studies where these plasmas have been observed, manufactured and maintained outside Tesla-class magnetic fields?

Terrestrial plasmas are the broader term for plasmas here on Earth. But lets just call them atmospheric plasmas to narrow it down. But lets get down to the more interesting parts of a plasma. You do not need a magnetic field to create and maintain a plasma, you need energy. And such energy can be created in many ways. You can make one in your microwave oven if you are so inclined. Also, when you rub a plastic stick wit a dry cloth to create static electricity, you build up charges and when discharged, you get a tiny lightening strike, which is a plasma. Same can happen in the atmosphere. When you have layer of air moving at different velocities, you can get friction that in turn can create differences in potentials. But the fact is that such exists and we still don't know why and how they are created and maintained. we just know that they are.

I have quoted the Hessdalen studies some times, but I don't mind doing it again. Here we have plasmas that exhibit such behaviors as UFOs exhibit. Again, they don't know why and how, and especially why it is happening just there. They can just observe that it is. From one of my earlier posts

Indeed, sometimes we hear quite some amusing stories on what it could be. I really don't want to hijack Haz's thread, but please allow me to quote a few paragraphs from one of the http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a..._teodorani.pdf:

pp. 1.

The balls of light which appear in the Hessdalen valley in Norway are exemplary of anomalous atmospheric luminous phenomena that occur frequently at some locations on Earth.

pp. 2

In general they consist of light balls of many forms and colors, characterized by pulsations, often erratic movements, occasional long duration, and intense emission of energy. Their dimensions range from decimeters up to 30 m.

Sounds familiar?

pp. 3

During that campaign, it was also demonstrated that these lights often produce a strong radar signature with a peculiar behavior. Once a bright light was radar-tracked moving at 8500 m/s (the radar was working at 3 cm).

Again, sounds familiar?

pp. 3.

Several attempts were made to get a reaction. The lights ''responded'' almost always by changing their flashing sequence from a regular flashing mode to a regular double-flashing mode and returning to a regular flashing mode after the laser beam was moved away (Strand, 1985, 2000).

Here we have something that is intensely luminous, provides a strong radar signature, can move fast and highly erratically (seeming intelligently), reacting to outside stimuli (in this case a laser beam). This is why I can simply not take a report from 1968 as being relevant, as it reflects what they knew at the time about atmospheric events, and recent science very obviously contradicts what was stated then.

This is why we need the irrefutable evidence, as otherwise we simply do not know. We can speculate, but that is all we can currently do.

My point not being that we can say that our UFO sightings indeed are plasmas. But my point being that until the point where we can eliminate all earthly explanations, the sightings remain unknown. We simply do not know what they are. Period.

Your line of thinking seems to be "since we have these upper atmospheric ionic instabilities, blue sprites, etc., then they may somehow explain what we see in the troposphere and close to the Earth," but I'm sure you of all people know that this is a completely different atmospheric environment and in no way does explain the emissive power, coherency and extreme mobility of UFOs, nor will it explain the regular solid objects.

No, that is not my line of thinking and I hope the above clarified that. If not, I would be more than happy to explain it in more detail. I am certainly not thinking of sprites, elves and higher atmospheric emissions and discharges. Although those are extremely interesting in and of themselves, they do not relate to the present discussion.

This is known as priming, but it does not lead to gross misidentification. Pilots are also trained to look for celestial markers, beacon lights and bad weather. Also, if this were the case, it can be argued that pilots would see things they except to see, such as wings and engine nacelles, instead of circular metallic craft.

Yes and no. Pilots are trained to look for many things, all of them known. But a pilot seeing something that is so rare that it is not taught and very few pilots ever hear about it and let alone see it, something that exhibits the same characteristics as an artificial craft would, that tends to make it a craft. It is instinct and it is hard to get past that. I am not saying that it is a misidentification - I am just saying that it is extremely hard to eliminate the option.

And then we are back at the problems of eye witness reports. We can argue back and forth about such, but I think that might be a waste of time

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

True badeskov, I would imagine that any impact force from even a large laser would be negligible considering it is only a concentrated beam of light. Although I could be wrong.

Indeed. Any coherent light with the energy to push you around would leave you significantly lighter as it would have vaporized your chest in the process

Cheers,

badeskov

[Evangium]

~Bolding mine~

The post I was originally responding to is:

The plasma theory was given as one example.

If more and more leads to natural phenomena then it seems reasonable to see how the plasma theory stands up to individual cases. For curiosity if nothing else.

If your going to make vague references to my posts then at least have the decency to take them in context to the post I was enquiring about.

Word twisting is something I try to leave to one particular expert in this field. Despite how he may try and insinuate it, I, and (hopefully) the other 'skeptics', on this board won't resort to subterfuge if we have an issue with a particular point you make. In that case, we will reply directly to you.

Regarding my statement, I wasn't specifically referring to your post, as several members have posted to the effect that plasma can't account for certain, individual cases (as I read it).

My point I was trying to make, was that since Badeskov has acknowledged that plasma can't account for all UFOs, logically the only way to 'attack' the argument is to highlight the problems with the plasma/earthlight theory to the exclusion of all other theories. That includes the contrasting of why plasma can't account for particular UFO cases.

On to your response, personally I have no problems with the fact that you seem to be stating that the plasma theory needs more verification before it can be an acceptable explanation in light of other explanations.

But I've seen the plasma argument on 3 other occassions now and, each time, the most vocally presented arguments against it were-

1) Plasma can't account for this or that case;

2) Sounds like Klass' theory from the 70's which he abandoned; and,

3) Plasma is the new swamp gas.

To me this is hardly an adequate critique of the terrestrial plasma hypothesis. Hence my reference to Caelistia's critcism of the argument put forward by earthlight proponents. Of course, I understand that there are quite a few similarities between that critique and the one for saucer reality.

Hopefully this clears up the confusion

I don't hold much hope that this round will present anything I haven't already seen before, though.

Hence, I've presentied a new 'case' for consideration.

edit:typo

Edited October 27, 2008 by Evangium

[badeskov]

I understand your point but when you compare that to descriptions of ufo reports it doesn't hold water. If plasma was the cause then that doesn't explain the 'objects' avoidance of the plane, even when the object is directly in front the plane.

Yes and no. Again, I am not sure which UFO reports you are specifically talking about, so I can't really say why in that context. However, plasmas can do different things that seems to be a deliberate effort to avoid/follow a plane:

1) it can slipstream, i.e. be caught in the plane's slip stream and follow it. But it should be gone when the energy to maintain it is removed.

2) It can react to radar waves, i.e. if a planes radar locks onto a plasma, it'll create an influx of energy on one side that can increase the degree of ionization on one side and thus effectively create thrust.

3) The atmosphere can experience magnetic ducting, where plasmas can be held in such. However, a plane is metallic and thus a huge magnetic disturbance that will incur perturbations in the magnetic field guiding the plasma.

In the end, we simply don't enough enough about the phenomenon yet to truly understand the chaotic physics behind it. We can just observe that they exist.

If plasma was the cause then surely some cases would have arisen were these objects are reported and then the plane makes contact with the plasma, either with no adverse effect or with catastrophic effects. On the cases were the unkown object and aircraft are seen to merge on radar the plane often disappears.

I'll look around tomorrow to check if there's any cases where the two objects merge and aircraft wreckage is later found, if so, it should have some description of the plane wreckage and cause. I'm pretty sure those cases don't exist (from memory) but i'll check tomorrow.

It is a good point if there has ever been collisions. But in the case of a collision it should not cause a crash, or rather, it would me very unlikely to do so. Aircraft are struck by lightening and typically nothing happens (as there shouldn't). A plasma has the mass as air and is not a solid object.

Needless to say, I find the plasma theory extremely unlikely.

I respect that and that is certainly how it should be, i.e. you form your own opinion on the matter. I am just explaining why I feel that plasmas can account for some of the sightings and why we cannot exclude atmospheric phenomena we have no yet discovered.

I don't believe that's true at all. Pilots with flight times in the region of 10,000+ flying hours (and the man in question I mentioned in my post was also a former fighter pilot) would have seen and been trained to indentify all manner of phenomena, from weather and atmospherics to objects and potential hazzards. I find the idea that they are programmed through their intense training to only recognise unknown ariel objects as craft to be a little 'out there', excuse the pun.

Fair enough. The problem is that, relatively speaking, very few will ever see such events when flying and they are not trained to identify them. And when they see something that has geometrical shapes and moves in ways weather phenomena doesn't, training tells them we are talking crafts and not some natural phenomena.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TSS]

Hopefully this clears up the confusion

Yes it does and thank you for clarifying

I refuse to get into this singling out of Skyeagle, I think he makes valid points and won't be commenting further on alleged tactics, only the reports he posts, which whilst I've often read before I think actaully add to the thread.

I'll now go and look at the new 'case' you posted.

[badeskov]

Yes, but you see... that doesn't explain what people have seen at night time. During the day, yes - the Sun may render you as viewing a luminous object which is not really there... but it doesn't account for what people have seen at night, especially in desolate areas. Nor does it account for what airforce pilots have both confirmed at night via optical confirmation and radar.

Yes, it does. But we need to discuss a specific case in order to look at the sighting itself. However, plasmas can most certainly be highly reflective. It will basically act as a metallic object with respect to RF signals (e.g, radar waves). Please reply to others.

Airforce officials are trained to identify a variety of objects in the sky, not just "aircraft". Get your facts straight.

Of course they are, sorry for not being clear enough on that. But not unknown atmospheric events as they are, per definition, unknown.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

eyewitnesses havent been tested. show me a test in which people cant tell the size of objects from a certain distance?

Unless you have a frame of reference to compare an object to and the distance, it is extremely hard to make an accurate estimate size. Just to exemplify, why does the moon look immensely big sometimes (low in the sky) and other times it does not 9high in the sky)?! It's not like the distance to the moon changes enough to make a visual difference for us. And the size itself of the moon is obviously not "pulsating"

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Evangium]

Yes it does and thank you for clarifying

You're welcome. I'd prefer not to have an adverserial POV develop because of a misunderstanding

I refuse to get into this singling out of Skyeagle, I think he makes valid points and won't be commenting further on alleged tactics, only the reports he posts, which whilst I've often read before I think actaully add to the thread.

I just tend to worry that people new to the discussion are swayed more by the slagging matches than the cases themselves. Honestly, I have little problem with the reports he posts, since some of my favorite and respected researchers (Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern and Jaques Vallee) have commented on some of those cases. I just have a problem with the way he goes about his business. It is my problem, and you acknowledge that fact.

Which is, to me, a good sign that you are an objective thinker, as opposed to an emotive one.

I'll say no more on that individual to you, then

I'll now go and look at the new 'case' you posted.

Thank you. Whilst it isn't the definitive proof, I find that it does lend substance to other overlooked theories on the phenomena..

[badeskov]

I refuse to get into this singling out of Skyeagle, I think he makes valid points and won't be commenting further on alleged tactics, only the reports he posts, which whilst I've often read before I think actaully add to the thread.

Actually, they do add to the thread, albeit not in the context posted and not the way Sky wan't them to. I personally do not like singling out people either, however, in this particular case I am 100% on Evangium's side.

Sky's line of argumentation has been one, arduous long string of flood postings, deliberate omissions and misconceptions, twisting of other people's words, out of context postings and mis-representations of facts as well of avoiding sincere questions that would yield answers not going his way. It it, by all means of respect, dishonest argumentation and it is a continuing process. Thus the need to single out.

That line of argumentation is dishonest to readers who has not been following the present, dishonest to people who has been here for a long time (albeit most of us knows to look through his posts in detail and especially so the references) and especially dishonest towards himself. And the only reason for him not being on my ignore list is that once in a while when the arguments from him gets too thick I take him on. Not for my benefit, but for others that have not really been following what is going on and why one has to take his arguments with a grain (read: a lorry full) of salt.

Cheers,

badeskov

Edited for typo.

Edited October 27, 2008 by badeskov

[badeskov]

Seriously Sky, I had honestly decided that I am too busy with work to waste time one your absurdities, but you keep astounding me.

Why would you post such false information?

You are aware, of course that quote is from some 350 pages back?! And you at that time had no idea of how the clutter elimination filter on an F-16 worked and why it wouldn't work on a plasma?! No, I figured not - that has obviously been conveniently forgotten.

Don't forget, I was the person who set you straight when you'd claimed that radar technology wasn't reliable in 1952 and I used historical facts to prove you wrong.

Aah, the usual out of context argumentation. So tell me how a radar in 1952 reliably could eliminate atmospheric disturbances. Can you do that?! How effective was the noise filter?! I did not state that it wasn't reliable enough to be used for air traffic control.

I was also aware that atmospheric phenomena were never responsible for the case files that I have posted and I was also aware of the Air Force's 1969 study that clearly dismissed atmospheric temperature inversion as responsible for any of the case files I have posted.

Yes, you like temperature inversion, but I am leaning towards that is the only atmospheric phenomena you know about and it is especially good because it could not have caused the cases you have posted. heck, even I agree. But what about all the other weather/atmospheric related phenomena, some only recently discovered. Can you give me the report stating that those were not the cause either?

What it is, you are just trying use atmospheric phenomenon to replace UFOs that were described as intelligently controlled objects. In other words, the shoe doesn't fit in regards to what you are implying, and never did in regards to the case files in question.

Utter nonsense, which has been pointed out to you numerous times already. For the umpteenth time, I am not trying to pin a natural phenomena onto a UFO sighting, I am only saying that at present time we cannot exclude them - and you have not presented a single argument countering that. Rather the opposite, by your necessity to use less-than-credible- argumentation you basically point to yourself while screaming: "I have no evidence of Extra-terrestrial visitation".

Why not be honest about and categorize it is as a belief, just as my opinion of the opposite is a belief. We don't have evidence either way. And the discussions would be honest and much more constructive. Heck, we might even reach a consensus on some of them.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typo.

Edited October 27, 2008 by badeskov

[TSS]

I just tend to worry that people new to the discussion are swayed more by the slagging matches than the cases themselves. Honestly, I have little problem with the reports he posts, since some of my favorite and respected researchers (Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern and Jaques Vallee) have commented on some of those cases. I just have a problem with the way he goes about his business. It is my problem, and you acknowledge that fact.

Which is, to me, a good sign that you are an objective thinker, as opposed to an emotive one.

I'll say no more on that individual to you, then

Actually, they do add to the thread, albeit not in the context posted and not the way Sky wan't them to. I personally do not like singling out people either, however, in this particular case I am 100% on Evangium's side.

Sky line of argumentation has been one, arduous long string of flood postings, deliberate omissions and misconceptions, twisting of other people's words, out of context postings and mis-representations of facts as well of avoiding sincere questions that would yield answers not going his way. It it, by all means of respect, dishonest argumentation and it is a continuing process. Thus the need to single out.

That line of argumentation is dishonest to readers who has not been following the present, dishonest to people who has been here for a long time (albeit most of us knows to look through his posts in detail and especially so the references) and especially dishonest towards himself. And the only reason for him not being on my ignore list is that once in a while when the arguments from him gets too thick I take him on. Not for my benefit, but for others that have not really been following what is going on and why one has to take his arguments with a grain (read: a lorry full) of salt.

Cheers,

badeskov

I understand both your points of view, I'm merely saying that there's little point addressing me with your grievances of Skyeagle as I don't have a problem with him, on the contrary, I enjoy reading his posts, I think he's contributed greatly to the thread and whilst I disagree with him on certain aspects I actually admire his resolve.

I won't be taking sides, that's all I was saying.

Anyway, back to this case....

[badeskov]

LOL... Ahhh, Badeskov. Where do I send the bill for cleaning the coffee, I spilled, off my computer?

You really should be careful where you point that wit of yours

Earth, an Alien Wonderland I Wonder if they are guilty of overselling seats as well, since their evolution parallels our own (apparently)...

edit:typo

Hahaha, I do profusely apologize - I'll siphon some money out of a project and send you a new keyboard. It will, however, have 397 key and Alien letters on it, but I am sure after a little practice you'll manage.

Overselling seats, now wouldn't that be perfect in parallel worlds?! You would really only need one seat, but you would be able to sell it in an infinite number of parallel Universes - brilliant. Lets patent that idea immediately.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

I understand both your points of view, I'm merely saying that there's little point addressing me with your grievances of Skyeagle as I don't have a problem with him, on the contrary, I enjoy reading his posts, I think he's contributed greatly to the thread and whilst I disagree with him on certain aspects I actually admire his resolve.

I won't be taking sides, that's all I was saying.

Anyway, back to this case....

Not to worry, it is not a habit of mine to publicly exhibit my stances and, as Evangium I have neither desire nor need to do so in the future to you. l just felt it was important to state up front why some of us has this stance, as it has nothing to do with Sky as a person (I am sure he is a great guy and I would enjoy having a beer with him), but with his line of argumentation and that is very important as pertaining to the present discussion.

Nonetheless, I agree, lets get back to the case

Cheers,

Badeskov

[bee]

it is not a habit of mine to publicly exhibit my stances

I should think not....you don't want to get arrested...

(sorry...couldn't resist that...back to the scrapping debate...)

[badeskov]

I should think not....you don't want to get arrested...

(sorry...couldn't resist that...back to the scrapping debate...)

No further comments...

Cheers,

Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

Isnt freedom of speach a great thing? Now for a few more years of freedom of thought.

[skyeagle409]

Essentially it's the argument version of a double negative, to respond with "Plasma can't account for this case". If you want to try and defeat the plasma argument, you're better off finding tha Caelistia link I posted earlier and working from there...

I want to reiterate, that plasma is not considered an intelligently controllled craft, and rightly so.

[skyeagle409]

Essentially it's the argument version of a double negative, to respond with "Plasma can't account for this case". If you want to try and defeat the plasma argument, you're better off finding tha Caelistia link I posted earlier and working from there...

I want to reiterate, that plasma is not considered an intelligently controllled craft, and rightly so.

[skyeagle409]

Link?

Those are always nice.

Edit:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id...=result#PPP1,M1

The title is:

The alien files / Paul McEvoy.

It's about:

Presents facts about UFO's.

Unidentified flying objects - Juvenile literature.

Life on other planets - Juvenile literature.

Is this the one???

Thanks!

[skyeagle409]

<> Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God.

Doesn't fly! When can we expect you to answer those questions?

You on the other hand have yet to find the city the ballpark is in...

Considering that some skeptics have tried to throw in plasma and planets to explain intelligently controled UFOs that maneuvered around aircraft, in addition to hypersonic weather balloons, I have often said that those skeptics were playing left field so deep, they needed a taxi to get back to the stadium.

Edited October 27, 2008 by skyeagle409