More Best Evidence for aliens

[NigelTM]

I leave for a few hours, and come back to find 4 more pages to catch up on. There's so much I want to comment on, but I just don't have time......

I find it amazing that Sky is "in the know" about UFOs....the classic CT'er, who has "secret" information, which all by itself, makes his argument questionable in my mind.

Ra's (apparent) binary view of the world is also pretty telling: either it's A or it's B...it's obviously not A (atmospheric phenomena) so it must be B (ET). Sorry, but the world just isn't that simple. Things aren't always that neat and tidy.

Sky, I've always heard that the Trinidad UFO was shot by a photographer who was familiar with, if not an expert in, trick photography (except in Frank Edwards' book "Flying Saucers--Serious Business, which is where I first read about the case, but Edwards was prone to, shall we say, exaggeration at best). Care to dispute (I almost wrote "debunk"!) that?

[skyeagle409]

LOL - priceless! It's either a cloud, plasma or an alien piloted ufo!

In case you missed it before, read a bit about its history to see where you are going wrong.

Post #692

Lucky for my monitor and keyboard that I wasn't holding a cup of coffee in my hand when I read your response, otherwise, there would have been coffee all over the place.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[TSS]

In case you missed it before, read a bit about its history to see where you are going wrong.

Post #692

Lucky for my monitor and keyboard that I wasn't holding a cup of coffee in my hand when I read your response, otherwise, there would have been coffee all over the place.

Yes, read it all before, countless times. Now, where is all this evidence you have that gives you the ability to rule out unknowns?

We are all waiting, and have been for a very very long time - feel free to keep skirting around the issue though, it's being noted time and time again.....

[skyeagle409]

Sky, I've always heard that the Trinidad UFO was shot by a photographer who was familiar with, if not an expert in, trick photography (except in Frank Edwards' book "Flying Saucers--Serious Business, which is where I first read about the case, but Edwards was prone to, shall we say, exaggeration at best). Care to dispute (I almost wrote "debunk"!) that?

I might add that the photo has been analyzed time and again, and to this very day, is deemed authentic, which should tell you something after investigations could find no evidence of any fake, especially when there were other witnesses of the object as well.

[badeskov]

Since you are here, perhaps you would like to answer the question about that object in the photo.

Can you attributed that object to some unknown atmospheric phenomena?

Please answer the question, . Right now, the skeptics are over a barrel because the object in the photo is clear enough to see that it isn't a cloud nor even plasma and in fact, similar to the object described in the JAL encounter over Alaska, but much smaller.

I think Sky Scanner hit the nail on the head. Your question is utterly irrelevant until the point in time when you can refute the observations by Jenny Randles. Introducing a new photo when you could not argue for the J. S. Henrardi image being genuine is not exactly helping you.

And as I have asked before, point me to the scientific analysis that proves that it is not natural causes then you have a cases. You are again tap dancing, which very obviously emphasizes that you have nothing to hang your hat on but your belief in being right. Honestly, I can't use that for anything at all. I need facts, not a tap dancing believer.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[skyeagle409]

Yes, read it all before, countless times.

Then, why did you throw in unknown atmopheric phenomena when the object was clearly that of an aerial craft that had nothing to do with the atmophere, known, or unknown?!

For you to make such a comment proves to me that you have no expertise on the workings of the atmosphere and in effect, telling the real experts that they don't know what they are talking about.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[badeskov]

In case you missed it before, read a bit about its history to see where you are going wrong.

Post #692

Lucky for my monitor and keyboard that I wasn't holding a cup of coffee in my hand when I read your response, otherwise, there would have been coffee all over the place.

So you conceit defeat and admit that you cannot substantiate your Belgian UFO claims nor refute the points put out severely questioning the veracity of the J.S. Henrardi image? Since you decided to completely change the subject again, I consider that the case.

Thank you!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited August 1, 2009 by badeskov

[skyeagle409]

So you conceit defeat and admit that you cannot substantiate your Belgian UFO claims nor refute the points put out severely questioning the veracity of the J.S. Henrardi image?

I know that you are kidding because the photos and data proved beyond any doubt the Belgian UFO was real and I must add, that in a debate, I presented information that radar can differentiate between certain things, even between saucers and aircraft and bat and bird species and atmospheric phenomena.

But pushing your take, proves to me you have no expertise on what I have presented in regards to radar contacts and data and that is what I want to readers to know about certain skeptics who are trying to debunk UFOs in the same way as trying to fit a size 13 foot into a size 7 shoe.

See how long, and well, plasma interacts with aircraft, and, compare details on what the aircrew of that B-52 had described. in regards to that object they encountered, which was also tracked on airborne and in addtion to ground-based witnesses.

Perhaps, I should forward your message to B-52 aircrews at Minot AFB to have them comment on your claim. After all, I have been talking with some of them already.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[NigelTM]

I might add that the photo has been analyzed time and again, and to this very day, is deemed authentic, which should tell you something after investigations could find no evidence of any fake, especially when there were other witnesses of the object as well.

Deemed authentic by whom?

I could deem it authentic. Doesn't mean anything. For example, I could make a mudpie, call it ancient Egyptian, write out a "certificate of authenticity" and sell the package on an infomercial. "Look! It comes with its own Certificate of Authenticity!" Absolutely meaningless.

Let's say for instance the Trinidad photo is "authentic," in the sense that the photographer shot what he (and others) claimed to have seen. Who's to say they weren't the victims of a hoax?

Once again, you'll have to do better than this.

[TSS]

Then, why did you throw in unknown atmopheric phenomena when the object was clearly that of an aerial craft that had nothing to do with the atmophere, known, or unknown?!

For you to make such a comment proves to me that you have no expertise on the workings of the atmosphere and in effect, telling the real experts that they don't know what they are talking about.

I threw unknown atmospheric phenomena in because it is the most likely cause. You haven't been paying attention have you - if you go back and look at the other thread you will see I posted a few cases where unknown weather related phenomena showed identical attributes to what people like you claim is evidence of ET. There was the case of the gentlemen on his motorbike, engulfed in a low level greenish mist, with a heavy static feel - and the case of the lady who witnessed an oval shaped object in a field, which upon closer inspection resembled a dark grey/brownish mass of cloud with a low pitched humming and heavy static feel around it. Now go back and look at the details of the trinidad photo you posted - and have a look at some the similiarities between what is described in that encounter and the weather related encounters I posted.......clue for you - shape, colour, greenish mist etc etc..

[Evangium]

Do I really need to comment on the Belgian photo, when SOBEPS (the agency who were involved in the investigations and whose journal covers that photo - or one remarkably similar- graced) said in their dissolution statement -

'Another of our fights was to undertaking a real educational action toward the Public with the objective to explain that, with the current data available, it is impossible to conclude anything about UFOs. We had also to be polemical with strong UFO believers for whom a tiny light in the sky seems to be the proof to announce any alien landing."

http://www.cobeps.org/en/dissolution.html

36 years of the organisation researching the phenomena. I wonder how many years the individual experience of each member would tally? Probably more than enough to make Skyeagle's pale into insignificance.

And they to have their well-placed sources. Of course the difference is I don't see anything that indicates that those guys have a pathological need to come to internet forums with the intention of convincing a select few that they are indeed the deepthroats those believers have been looking for rather than another waster of their time.

As Badeskov correctly points out, switching photos doesn't help the case.

The Trindad photo could be anything. UFO, aircraft, time storm, plasma, hoax, defect in the film emulsion, an artifact produced in the developing stage. It has been examined by the experts, and they can't agree with what it represents either.

To some of you this is certainly a mark of it's credibility. However, the same is true for certain hoaxes and unintended effects. Experts have allowed themselves to be convinced of the reality of what they want to see, rather than through any technologically verified proof.

Even today there are photoanalysts who refuse to admit that they were wrong about Eduard Meier, despite what improvments in technology and methodology have unmasked.

edit:typos

Edited August 1, 2009 by Evangium

[skyeagle409]

Deemed authentic by whom?

Read all of the reports on that object. Time to do some homework!

Just an insurance measure against debunking routines, you understand!

I want to show readers how some skeptics with no expertise, tend to tell the real experts that they don't know what they are talking about.

[skyeagle409]

I threw unknown atmospheric phenomena in because it is the most likely cause.

You have to get realistic!

It is obvious that the object is not the result of any unknown atmospheric phenomena, so are you trying to insult the intelligence of readers here?

To make sure that I am getting the record straight, can I can safely say that Sky Scanner is tellling the readers here, that the object in this photo could be the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomena? Remember, this is for the official record in regards to your stance on this photo that can be referenced by others time and again in the future.

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Do I really need to comment on the Belgian photo, when SOBEPS (the agency who were involved in the investigations and whose journal covers that photo - or one remarkably similar- graced) said in their dissolution statement -

'Another of our fights was to undertaking a real educational action toward the Public with the objective to explain that, with the current data available, it is impossible to conclude anything about UFOs. We had also to be polemical with strong UFO believers for whom a tiny light in the sky seems to be the proof to announce any alien landing."

http://www.cobeps.org/en/dissolution.html

As I've said before, the photo was reintroduced after examinations revealed something new, and after all of these years, so what is that tellinig you? The photo remains unrefuted by the skeptics after all of this time and it was part of a video as well.

I can remember some time ago that it was revealed that the lights near the tips had indicated that the object was rotating about it vertical axis when the film was made. And, thousands of witnesses described the same object you see in the photo, and not just in Belgium either, but around neighboring countries and around the globe, so trying to debunk photos that has already revealed something new that had nothing to do with the atmosphere, just ain't gonna get it!!

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

There all Laughing there little Green and Grey Haeds off at us!justDONTEATUS See Y`all in Two Weeks!

[TSS]

You have to get realistic!

It is obvious that the object is not the result of any unknown atmospheric phenomena, so are you trying to insult the intelligence of readers here?

To make sure that I am getting the record straight, can I can safely say that Sky Scanner is tellling the readers here, that the object in this photo could be the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomena? Remember, this is for the official record in regards to your stance on this photo that can be referenced by others time and again in the future.

Do you have trouble reading plain english?? I've said several times that it is a distinct possibility, and in my opinion the most likely explanation - what part of that simple sentence do you not understand?

And to add to your childish official record (i.have.not.the.words) - you are claiming that the object in that photo is an alien piloted structured craft? - now who's the one insulting everyones intelligence here!!!!

[skyeagle409]

There all Laughing there little Green and Grey Haeds off at us!justDONTEATUS See Y`all in Two Weeks!

Have a great time and I will be off to Las Vegas next week to meet with some World War II pilots at a convention.

[skyeagle409]

Do you have trouble reading plain english??

Only in debunker english, and I know when someone is serving me vanilla after I ordered chocolate, and I also understand where you are coming from, so once again, for us all, are you insisting that the object in the photo could be the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomena?

Just answer the question for us all, please!

Edited August 1, 2009 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

you are claiming that the object in that photo is an alien piloted structured craft? - now who's the one insulting everyones intelligence here!!!!

Of course I am because the object is similar to other objects that have been reported over the years and such objects are not in our closet .

[NigelTM]

Read all of the reports on that object. Time to do some homework!

Just an insurance measure against debunking routines, you understand!

I want to show readers how some skeptics with no expertise, tend to tell the real experts that they don't know what they are talking about.

I'll freely admit I have no expertise in radar technology, on the other hand, I never claimed to. I'll leave that debate to others.

However, I (and others) have demolished your arguments time and again on grounds of simple logic. The fact of the matter is, you haven't proven your claims that ET visitation is a fact, you've used dishonest debating tactics, and claim to have inside knowledge that other, more mundane people don't.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone outside this debate, and you read claims like, "That's what the government says in public, but I know it's different behind closed doors! Even if I've never been in a meeting like that, I know, because I've heard and read what other people know...." and so on. You have no direct proof, but instead interpret the opinions of officials to suit your own mindset.

I put it to you again, that it's illogical for ET to have visited Earth innumerable times in the last several decades, centuries, or millenia, and yet we still don't have one piece of solid evidence that can be examined that proves beyond all doubt ET exists. Not one bolt from a flying saucer, not an alien body, not a book (as Betty Hill claimed to have received), nothing. Yet the US and other governments are so clever, so all-powerful, so pervasive (and persuasive) as to cover up every bit of proof.

That simply makes no sense. Your challenge is to make it make sense, since you "know" ET exists, and the proof is being covered up.

[Lilly]

Of course I am because the object is similar to other objects that have been reported over the years and such objects are not in our closet .

Maybe the objects are in nature's closet? I just don't see how you can dismiss this possibility.

[S2F]

Hey everyone, it's been a while since I've posted (lurking for the most part). It seems to me that some people have trouble understanding what it takes for an "unknown" to become a "known". There are two possibilities (that I can think of) that can answer the questions of unknowns. One is direct study. A critical and scientific look at a physical object or phenomenon. The second is eliminating all other possibilities until only one is left (which sounds good on paper but I honestly know of no cases where this has actually taken place for anything). For one, it unintentionally adds a whole host of unknowns to the list and until each and every one is satisfactorily explained away then there can be no definitive answer for the original unknown. To the best of my knowledge neither of these has been satisfactorily applied to UFO's/ET.

On a side note, it has been said before but there are no experts in Aliens or their technology. All anyone (scientists included) can hope to offer in such an area of knowledge is opinion and conjecture.

[skyeagle409]

Maybe the objects are in nature's closet? I just don't see how you can dismiss this possibility.

For one, such flying vehicles do not occur nationally in nature. If there is a protrusion on a flying saucer, it will bounce a beam back to the radar antenna,and such protrusions have been reported in some cases. That is why stealth aircraft have retractable objects that don't protrude into the airstream because they will give away the aircraft's position on the radar screen and stealth aircraft have special windows so radar beams can't bounce off a pilot's helment and back to the antenna, which will give away the aircaft's position as well.

And yes, experienced radar controllers can differentiate between birds and aircraft and even hellicopters on their radar screens, not to mention flying saucers as well, since they have their own unique signatures from aircraft and birds.

Is there any reason as to why those 10 plasma experts dismissed plasma in the RB-47 case? I must also add that debunker, Phil Klass, eventually threw out plasma as well.

Edited August 2, 2009 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I'll freely admit I have no expertise in radar technology, on the other hand, I never claimed to. I'll leave that debate to others.

There were two other people who thought so, but it was evident in the way one of them responded to me with certain words recently on another thread, that he didn't know anything about what he was trying to portray. A real expert would have known what I was posting and would not have argued any points, and I knew it, but the other poster responded in a way that he should not have, that is what gave him away because it told me that he had no idea about the way a certain radar system worked.

However, I (and others) have demolished your arguments time and again on grounds of simple logic. The fact of the matter is, you haven't proven your claims that ET visitation is a fact, you've used dishonest debating tactics, and claim to have inside knowledge that other, more mundane people don't.

I am not being dishonest, and those who have claimed that the data or other evidence that I have provided is not proof enough, just don't understand what the data depicts. Is it any wonder then, as to why highly experienced aircrews pointed toward ET as responsible for their encounters?

In some cases, they've reported hypersonic flying vehicles, some as large as ships, as responsible and even provided little details and descriptions on what they observed on the vehicles themselves and still, there are those who will throw in plasma for a vehicle where structural components were seen and described, not to mention rotating beacon lights.

When I see someone trying to portray atmospheric phenomena, known, or unknown, as responsible for the UFO case files that I have listed, just don't know anything about the way things work in the atmosphere.

They will say that the aircrews have confused plasma, but let's get real. When a pilot flies at night, the pilot is going to see all kinds of aerial lights in the sky, some with rotating beacon lights and even landing lights as commercial and military aircraft tend to leave their landing lights on below 10,000 feet for safety purposes, and aircrews will see many of those lights and not any UFO contacts. To me, plasma is another weak link along side that of weather balloons.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone outside this debate, and you read claims like, "That's what the government says in public, but I know it's different behind closed doors! Even if I've never been in a meeting like that, I know, because I've heard and read what other people know...." and so on. You have no direct proof, but instead interpret the opinions of officials to suit your own mindset.

There are ways a person can find out on the way the government really works. Just look at the 1994 and the 1997 Roswell reports. Those who made up those reports must have been giving themselves 'high-fives' for pullling another fast on over on the public.

For an example, the 1994 Roswell report adds Project Mogul into the picture and many people, after reading the report, thought that the balloons and equipment were enough for the Air Force to cover them up, but what they didn't know was, the Air Force published photos of Mogul balloons in newspapers around the country and even provided the nature of the experiments of those Project Mogul balloon in the newspapers as well, and some skeptics have said that the words: Project Mogul," were not even mentioned to anyone until recently, but that is pure bunk because not long ago, I posted a letter where the words: Project Mogul was clearly evident on the page that I had provided.

So, that argument has finally gone done in flames as well.

Taking a look at the 1997 Roswell report, it says that alien bodies seen in 1947, were really test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s, with the last accident occurring in 1959. It was truly amazing to me that the Air Force put it that way and still, it fooled a lot of people anyway. Goes to show just how easy it is for the government to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Another case in point was that the Air Force's own project officer for "Project: High Dive," went public and dismissed the Air Force's 1997 Roswell report, in my own words, as inaccurate and false.

He should know, after all, he supplied some of the material used in that 1997 Roswell report, but why are some skeptics still following the Air Force's false line in regards to that report?

I put it to you again, that it's illogical for ET to have visited Earth innumerable times in the last several decades, centuries, or millenia, and yet we still don't have one piece of solid evidence that can be examined that proves beyond all doubt ET exists.

I have often said that just because you don't have it, doesn't mean everyone, and you have to understand just what I meant.

Edited August 2, 2009 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Do you have trouble reading plain english?? I've said several times that it is a distinct possibility, and in my opinion the most likely explanation - what part of that simple sentence do you not understand?

I posted my last response to you a bit too early, so I will respond once again with this post.

"...that it is a distinct possibility, and in my opinion the most likely explanation..."

If you had read the reports, it would have been clearly evident as to why there was no distinct possibility at all, that the object was the result of some atmospheric phenomena; known, or unknown.

Edited August 2, 2009 by skyeagle409