Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

More Best Evidence for aliens


Recommended Posts

I believe that there are "aliens" out there, but I don't believe they have been to Earth just yet.

Let's consider this, why would aliens enter our atmosphere just to allow us to see them. Don't you think that logically, they wouldn't want us to know about them if an impending attack was imminent. I believe if Aliens were that interested in us they would watch us rather than allow us to see them and "give the game away". But this is under the presumption that they have the technology to watch us from a seat rather than sending scouts. But then another question comes that if they can create a way to travel across the universe, a way to put themselves in suspended animation so they don't die, as Space travel across that distance would presumably take well over the natural life span of any organism we know of. So if they have this kind of technology, they should be able to watch us using some form of surveillance equippment.

Also, what would landing on our planet in the first place get them? Lets think about this for a second. If they land/ abduct us they would want to know about military and stuff like that. No one knows about that stuff really do they? Also wouldn't they scan our satellites in an attempt to retrieve information about us? Makes sense if I'm hoest :/

Tell me what ya'll think.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

GSH, I think you're right, in that it makes no sense from our perspective that aliens would want to come here and play tag. In the end though, that's all we've got to go on: our perspective. They may have extra long life spans relative to us, and so a trip of 1,000 years (or 10,000) could be like flying from Europe to Australia is for us. Or perhaps they have multi-generational ships, or perhaps....perhaps...perhaps....

In the end, all we have is speculation about "them," because we have nothing else. The hardcore evidence that anyone else in the Universe even exists, much less have come here, just isn't there (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown is just that: "unknown atmospheric phenomena." Question is, what does that have to do with the UFO case files that I have listed?

Is this what you can refer to as,"unknown atmospheric phenomena?"

tailsection.jpg

That put it well Skyeagle! :tu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)

And the these Black Triangle UFO's are reported world wide, and the Military crafts of the Earth are not able to chase these UFO's and all the other UFO's including also the Cigar shaped UFO:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4468185100897567649

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should bring that up to the skeptics who were the folks who brought it up.

But, I do know that it has nothing to do with objects that were clearly under intelligent control as indicated as they interacted with aircraft.

The problem is that skeptics don't want to take a close look at these images and reports, including they don't want to believe in all these witnesses' testimonies.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/stpetersburg1997.html

The St. Petersburg incident is one of the most witnessed and highly recorded incidents in the history of UFOlogy. The events took place in the skies over St. Petersburg in Russia on the evening of 19th February 1997, when at around 7-00p.m. the residents of the city became aware of a cluster of lights hovering overhead.

The incident was unusual in that there were multiple witnesses; a number of video recordings made and was seen quite clearly by air traffic staff and aircrew at the local airport. Just after 7-00 p.m. the air traffic controllers at the local airport saw the strange objects appear on their radar screens and also strange lights became quite visible in the skies over the airport. One of the air traffic controllers, Victor Laxtushin, went outside and witnessed the objects, he remarked:

"I sketched the event as it happened; the shape of the lights changed, left and then re-appeared. Others were watching through binoculars. There was an aircraft on the runway - they confirmed the presence of a UFO. I am perhaps better qualified than most witnesses but I can't say what it was - experimental craft?

But why fly experimental aircraft over St. Petersburg?" By 7-15p.m. the strange lights had now apparently formed into a "triangle" and reports of the UFO were coming in from many different locations and many people captured the incident on video tape. He remains perplexed by the whole event.

Uri Arzamastsev, an economics student, noticed the lights, high in the sky and well above the horizon, through the kitchen window - rushing outside with his camcorder he captured the UFO on video and, by this time, the rest of his family were also witnessing the event.

The incident was later officially investigated by Naval Captain Pavel Syrchenko, who after collating all the evidence was unable to explain the event away as military or civilian aircraft, balloons etc.

The objects hovered over the city for about 20 minutes and at 7-20p.m. they could not be seen. There are many similarities between the St. Petersburg incident and the series of events which became known as "The Phoenix Lights". In both cases the appearance of a "triangular-shaped" craft was heralded by strange lights in the sky.

There are good exsamples of people who was once a skeptic, untill they witnessed a UFO with several strange lights, hovering, and then moved away at extremely high speed. And some of these UFO's are as large as about two Football Fields.......

Oh boy, one these witnesses got burned, and he have still scars of the UFO encount of today and as the doctors can't explain, and there were high amounts of radiation on the ground......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8958368783858894848

Edited by Ra_Sun-God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is not regarding the metallic looking surfaces, but I figured I'd post it anyways as it has some relevance. From the Hessdalen EMBLA 2000 report (PDF), pp. 10.:

Just something to ponder before dismissing natural phenomena immediately. :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

http://www.ufoer.net/viewthread.php?action...le&tid=1166 ;)

This Danish guy was once a skeptic, untill his UFO encount......

Edited by Ra_Sun-God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that skeptics don't want to take a close look at these images and reports, including they don't want to believe in all these witnesses' testimonies.

A lot of sceptics have witnessed ufo's, they just don't tend to be as closed minded as many believers in their opinions of what it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you didn't read the article then?

Also, It is somewhat of a modern misconception that the Inquisition punished those who promoted scientific thinking.

More people were imprisoned and tortured for not belonging to the right branch of the church, than were ever punished for proposing that the earth is a globe and orbits the sun in an ellipitical, rather than circular, orbit.

Yes I did read the article. :)

I have learned in high school about European history. And several hundred years ago the Church also believed that the Sun circled arround the Earth :lol: And dare those who said something else, they sure got punished and tortured :(

You see, it is not everything that is mentioned on the Internet.

It is so sad that the Internet have such lack of informations. Actually the Internet do not cantain lots of important informations....... :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ra, I disagree with you. Actually, the Internet probably has more information on every subject there is than any other single place on Earth. The hard part is learning how to search for it. It also probably has more dis-information than any other place. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell which one you're looking at. KennyB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of sceptics have witnessed ufo's, they just don't tend to be as closed minded as many believers in their opinions of what it could be.

believers arent closed minded, they look into the accounts and try figuring out what they could be and do most of the research into these subjects where skeptics do not. they wait for things presented by believers to try and shoot down with 'rational' explanations.

im stating this from my experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I did read the article. :)

I have learned in high school about European history. And several hundred years ago the Church also believed that the Sun circled arround the Earth :lol: And dare those who said something else, they sure got punished and tortured :(

You see, it is not everything that is mentioned on the Internet.

It is so sad that the Internet have such lack of informations. Actually the Internet do not cantain lots of important informations....... :cry:

in my experiences Ra, anything you want in a book can be found on the net. its the largest information database in the world. as kenny said, you just have to filter out whats authentic/accurate and what is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

believers arent closed minded, they look into the accounts and try figuring out what they could be and do most of the research into these subjects where skeptics do not. they wait for things presented by believers to try and shoot down with 'rational' explanations.

im stating this from my experiences.

In my experiences I have found the opposite to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

believers arent closed minded, they look into the accounts and try figuring out what they could be and do most of the research into these subjects

I respectfully disagree to a certain extent. Some believers are...believers by all means and measures. So they will disregard any facts going against their beliefs whereas others do not. So it is probably wrong to put everybody into the same box like that.

where skeptics do not. they wait for things presented by believers to try and shoot down with 'rational' explanations.

im stating this from my experiences.

Here I can agree. That is what skepticism is all about. You are right, "we" (we as in skeptics) try to shoot everything down with rational explanations. In other words, "we" try to shoot as many holes in a given hypothesis as is humanly possible. It is not due to a personal vendetta or because "we" are paid government agents. But because when a hypothesis emerges in which "we" cannot poke any holes "we" know that something interesting has come up. And by some sheer coincidence, that is how science works. Try and present a poorly researched and faulty piece of work in front of a couple of hundred scientists at an international conference and you'll find anything you have encountered here a walk in the park. Science is cutthroat and utterly unforgiving. Once your name is soiled, you face a very, very tough time in that business.

Unfortunately, so far it has been too easy to poke holes in what has been brought forth here. And to be quite frank, I'd rather be picky instead of being disappointed again and again.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I can agree. That is what skepticism is all about. You are right, "we" (we as in skeptics) try to shoot everything down with rational explanations. In other words, "we" try to shoot as many holes in a given hypothesis as is humanly possible.

You've got that right!

That is how come many skeptics have suggested planets as UFOs that maneuvered around aircraft with Earth's atmosphere, and weather balloons and clouds to explain hypersonic UFOs that were also tracked on radar, not to mention plasma that followed and manuevered around aircraft, sometimes for more than an hour over multiple states, and for hundreds of miles before darting off in a high speed climb toward space.

With suggestions like that, how rational can they get?!

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the picture is of ETs spaceship, because it was taken from a video clip that Mr Unknown shot... and that the video is now gone??

I am sure that video is around, but there is another video available.

Besides from people reporting triangles in the sky, how are we supposed to know that picture isnt a fake/hoax.

The results of the examinations were provided by me in one of the links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got that right!

That is how come many skeptics have suggested planets as UFOs that maneuvered around aircraft with Earth's atmosphere, and weather balloons and clouds to explain hypersonic UFOs that were also tracked on radar, not to mention plasma that followed and manuevered around aircraft, sometimes for more than an hour over multiple states, and for hundreds of miles before darting off in a high speed climb toward space.

With suggestions like that, how rational can they get?!

The difference between the reality and what your suggesting is that sceptics will offer a whole list of possibilities, and that's taking the original witness account on it's merit - then they will look at the witness account itself, and look for flaws or possible errors (even if unintentional by the observer) to see if the report stands up to scrutiny - to accept many of your beliefs it requires the reader to accept the account word for word, without questioning whether the observation is possible from what is being described, or if they observer has made any assumptions when relaying his/her sighting.

I started off really impressed by ufo reports when I first got interested in this many years ago - as time has gone on the reports are becoming less and less impressive - not because of the level of sightings, or means of recording them (which has infact improved) - but because when you look many of the accounts in detail, and really study the detail, they look less impressive each time you do.

That said, there are still accounts which baffle me, which leave me interested in this subject - but even those accounts do not seem to point to ET in any way, shape or form.

Edited by Sky Scanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between the reality and what your suggesting is that sceptics will offer a whole list of possibilities,...

I have to lay in on the line: the skeptics here don't have the knowledge to know how to operate the gun to shoot holes in anything. That is why they continue to push the plasma line on UFO case files where the 'shoe of plasma' doesn't even fit.

...and that's taking the original witness account on it's merit - then they will look at the witness account itself, and look for flaws or possible errors (even if unintentional by the observer) to see if the report stands up to scrutiny - to accept many of your beliefs it requires the reader to accept the account word for word, without questioning whether the observation is possible from what is being described, or if they observer has made any assumptions when relaying his/her sighting.

I have said it in the past on many occasions, that there have been eyewitness accounts of airborne and ground-based observers whose accounts were backed by airborne and ground-based radar and other electronic systems of the same objects.

I started off really impressed by ufo reports when I first got interested in this many years ago - as time has gone on the reports are becoming less and less impressive - not because of the level of sightings, or means of recording them (which has infact improved) - but because when you look many of the accounts in detail, and really study the detail, they look less impressive each time you do.

Check this out!

B-29 UFO Encounter

UFOS are detected by military radar. When these detection is confirmed by visual observation, there is no place left for "meteorological" or "astronomical" explanation or so-called "temperature inversion." When speed measurements are made, there is no space left for blaming observers for subjectivity errors. When an entire bomber crew reports, there is no space left for "psychological" dismissal.

In December 1952 Lieutenant Sid Coleman was Radar Officer aboard a B-29 bomber near Galveston. When watching the radarscope, Coleman observed two UFOs which he tracked at a speed in excess of 5.000 miles per hour, quite impossible for planes of the day. The captain of the plane, John Harter, suggested that Coleman recalibrate his set as the sighting was impossible but the sighting was immediately confirmed by the navigator on his radarscope. Eventually four UFOs were seen on the radar screen.

From the plane, they were also able to make visual contact with the object, watching it as a blue-white streak moving fast near the bomber. Shortly after this, there was a repeat with several more objects whizzing past their plane. Crew members watched the UFOs perform maneuvers to avoid hitting the plane. In the end a larger object absorbed the smaller craft and fled at 9.000 miles per hour.

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/coleman52.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check this out!

B-29 UFO Encounter

UFOS are detected by military radar. When these detection is confirmed by visual observation, there is no place left for "meteorological" or "astronomical" explanation or so-called "temperature inversion." When speed measurements are made, there is no space left for blaming observers for subjectivity errors. When an entire bomber crew reports, there is no space left for "psychological" dismissal.

In December 1952 Lieutenant Sid Coleman was Radar Officer aboard a B-29 bomber near Galveston. When watching the radarscope, Coleman observed two UFOs which he tracked at a speed in excess of 5.000 miles per hour, quite impossible for planes of the day. The captain of the plane, John Harter, suggested that Coleman recalibrate his set as the sighting was impossible but the sighting was immediately confirmed by the navigator on his radarscope. Eventually four UFOs were seen on the radar screen.

From the plane, they were also able to make visual contact with the object, watching it as a blue-white streak moving fast near the bomber. Shortly after this, there was a repeat with several more objects whizzing past their plane. Crew members watched the UFOs perform maneuvers to avoid hitting the plane. In the end a larger object absorbed the smaller craft and fled at 9.000 miles per hour.

[/b]http://www.ufologie.net/htm/coleman52.htm

I rest my case. Accept the account word for word, accept everything reported is 100% accurate, and accept that there could be no other possible explanations, even a still unknown one - and voila, it's aliens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rest my case. Accept the account word for word, accept everything reported is 100% accurate, and accept that there could be no other possible explanations, even a still unknown one - and voila, it's aliens!

You can also obtain the report under the Freedom of Infomation Act, which I have brought up time and again!

You won't accept it because you lack the knowledge of what is going on, which is the difference between you and I.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also obtain the report under the Freedom of Infomation Act, which I have brought up time and again!

T'riffic! .....i'm guessing you missed the point again, doesn't matter anyway.....

LOL to the bit you added in your edit!

Edited by Sky Scanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree to a certain extent. Some believers are...believers by all means and measures. So they will disregard any facts going against their beliefs whereas others do not. So it is probably wrong to put everybody into the same box like that.

Here I can agree. That is what skepticism is all about. You are right, "we" (we as in skeptics) try to shoot everything down with rational explanations. In other words, "we" try to shoot as many holes in a given hypothesis as is humanly possible. It is not due to a personal vendetta or because "we" are paid government agents. But because when a hypothesis emerges in which "we" cannot poke any holes "we" know that something interesting has come up. And by some sheer coincidence, that is how science works. Try and present a poorly researched and faulty piece of work in front of a couple of hundred scientists at an international conference and you'll find anything you have encountered here a walk in the park. Science is cutthroat and utterly unforgiving. Once your name is soiled, you face a very, very tough time in that business.

Unfortunately, so far it has been too easy to poke holes in what has been brought forth here. And to be quite frank, I'd rather be picky instead of being disappointed again and again.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Disappointed? Why? Science is about exploration and discovery - it is not about being "picky" or to "poke holes" in anything. Just see what is there, and let it take you where it will. That is how one discovers Badeskov, that is, if one is fearful about having their "name" "soiled" that is by exploration and discovering.

Also, define what is you mean by the word "rational" Badeskov. The history of conventional science is very poor, so I wouldn't exactly go on saying that a couple of hundred scientists at a international conference exactly holds the "truth" on anything, except the attitudes of mainly science careerists who are "cut-throat" and "utterly unforgiving" due to the excessive hubris that somehow they are the holders of all things truthful, because they are not.

Again, you do not seem to know the difference between experimental science, and theory where scientists meet to discuss findings, etc., etc., with one another. This has been done in many areas of science where one cannot prove the existance of many things, yet, it is nonetheless discussed, yes? So why is not done by conventional science on the UFO phenomena?

There has been no major conventional meeting of scientists in the hundreds regarding the UFO phenomena because they are scared to even touch it due to fears of their own careers being hurt since their "names" might be "soiled." That is not the worry of a true scientist, but a careerist, and does not show any science at all, but cowardice. Poke a hole in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree to a certain extent. Some believers are...believers by all means and measures. So they will disregard any facts going against their beliefs whereas others do not. So it is probably wrong to put everybody into the same box like that.

I can place the shoe on the other foot in regards to skeptic who continue to dismiss the facts and evidence until it's too late, as in the case in the Roswell incident where they embraced the weather balloon for 47 years, until 1994, and then, a Project Mogul balloon flight that never was, and test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s to explain an incident in 1947, not to mention planets in the JAL case before they found out that the UFOs were also tracked on radar, to which they changed their story to that of ice clouds despite clear skies.

An SR-71 to explain an UFO that flew to within a few miles of a satellite that sat over 20,000 miles above Earth and much, much more. I could go on and on in regards to skeptics dismissing actual facts and evidence despite concise presentations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FOIA reports can add further information not obtained on the internet.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that video is around, but there is another video available.

Lets see it... I mean, if you keep posting that triangle picture as the best evidence for ET visitation, Im interested in the video it came from.

The results of the examinations were provided by me in one of the links.

I must have missed it, any chance you could post that link again?

So... one of the two, or both, videos the triangle photo came from, and a link to the examination that proved it to be ET, beyond doubt.

Edited by Hazzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have missed it, any chance you could post that link again?

National Press Conference UFO Conference Report

Part III

Photo Enhancements, Analysis & Interpretation of

The Belgian Black Triangle Photos

(Submitted by various Belgian citizens)

by Robert D. Morningstar

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference9.html

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering how long it would be before we saw Morningstar's name actually mentioned in a post.

Well if it's the guy I'm thinking of, supposedly he's a civillian intelligence analyst and a psychotherapist who has been following the ufo phenomena for about 40 years. He's also researched JFK's assasination.

You can find his latest articles on ufodigest if you want to get a better understanding of where he's comming from (should be obvious from the link provided ;) ).

Edited by Evangium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.