More Best Evidence for aliens

[lost_shaman]

LS, the part in bold, do you mean that researchers of Plasma phenomenon?

Yeah, or anyone else doing field research of UAP's.

From what I recall about other posts you have made regarding your sighting, is it correct that the object was seen in a distance then made its way over to you before leaving again? Does any plasma research to date show any similar characteristics displayed by the said object in your sighting?

That's correct.

There being different types of plasma that have been observed, some of these share characteristics with the object I observed while others do not.

Are there any other elements to the sighting that work against the plasma answer (obviously from what is known to date about plasma)?

In general, I'd tend to say no. But that's a difficult question to answer definitely with so little to go on.

When the object left did it follow the same path it used to approach you? any changes in speed?

No, it did come slowly meandering close to ground from the North, it left by making a b-line to the North at about 20-30 ft above the ground. At first it moved very slowly, then it shot across hundreds of feet in just a split second, then when it left it was moving pretty fast but not as fast as it had when it shot over to hover near us.

Sorry for all these questions, should you find this intrusive in any way then please just tell me and I will ask no more. I do however find it fascinating and thank you for any answers you can provide.

p.s. as others have said I also do hope you find your answers!

No problem. Thanks.

[Space Commander Travis]

Just wondering, when people say that they don't believe something just because someone says something, does that also apply to, say, Relativity, and the speed of light, and the existence of sub-atomic particles and so on? All thsoe are probably not things that the average person in the street would be able to see or work out for themselves, but they have to trust the experts when they tell them about such things. So would no testimony from anyone be sufficient to convince on the subject of extraterrestrials? Who would people believe, if they said that Extratererstrials were real, and/or the govt. had had contact with them?

[TheMcGuffin]

Paul J. Hill and other scientists theorized that UFOs were often surrounded by an ionized or "excited" air plasma that was related to their propulsion system. Hill was a high-level scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center for many years.

He stated that: "When a hovering UFO starts to maneuver, it necessarily increases thrust (lift) and power. In such a circumstance, the UFO is generally observed to brighten rather than change color. This brightness would be the result of an increase in the activation power that the UFO puts out....while the energy levels of individual events stay fixed. This concept is simply standard quantum mechanics, which explains the changes in brightness as well as the color of the air surrounding a UFO at night."

Hill also wrote that: "The dazzling maneuver performance of UFO scout ships seems to result from their being over-designed for the investigation of planet Earth. If the UFO mission is stellar and planetary exploration, the high-g capability they demonstrate would enable them to explore giant planets with gravitational fields on the order of 100 times Earth gravity. Exploring Earth is UFO PLAY."

Hal Puhoff reviewed Hill's book here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070611073451/http://www.nidsci.org/articles/puthoff_bookreview.php

http://www.iprimus.ca/~mallet/paulrhill.shtml

[TheMcGuffin]

Hal Puthoff made this observation about UFOs, which struck a chord with me:

"One of the most consistently-observed characteristics of UFO flight is a ubiquitous pattern in which they tilt to perform all maneuvers. Specifically, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, and descend by "falling-leaf" or "silver-dollar-wobble" motions. Detailed analysis by Hill shows that such motion is inconsistent with aerodynamic requirements, but totally consistent with some form of repulsive force-field propulsion. Not satisfied with paper analyses alone, Hill arranged to have various forms of jet-supported and rotor-supported circular flying platforms built and tested. Hill himself acted as test pilot in early, originally-classified, versions, and found the above motions the most economical for control purposes. Pictures of these platforms are included in the text."

The one I saw was also level when it hovered, and it stayed in the same position for ten to fiftten minutes, but then it tilted upward at a 45 degree angle just before it took off at a tremendous rate of speed.

[Space Commander Travis]

Hill also wrote that: "The dazzling maneuver performance of UFO scout ships seems to result from their being over-designed for the investigation of planet Earth. If the UFO mission is stellar and planetary exploration, the high-g capability they demonstrate would enable them to explore giant planets with gravitational fields on the order of 100 times Earth gravity. Exploring Earth is UFO PLAY."

That's an interesting angle, yes. I suppose that probes or exploration craft would be designed to cope with a whole range of conditions, wouldn't they; if something was capable of oeprating in, say, Jupiter's atmosphere, (not because theat's where they're from, but for purposes of exploration, say), then it would account for a lot, wouldn't it. It'd make sesne to have a standard design of craft for all conditions, rather than having one designed for earth , one for jupiter, etc.

[Hazzard]

well....yes I do...at least I think I do!

I think that the amount of claims made and the credibility of some of these must add weight to the possibility.

I also think that all of these accounts/claims/witnesses etc can make someone a believer ( I am one of those) however I think the key difference is knowing versus believing. All of the claims etc can only make one a believer but cannot make us reach the stage of knowing. For this to happen we need the evidence that you ask for.

So I guess you dont believe and do not know, and I believe but also do not know....so we all have the common ground of not knowing.

lastly, believers use the quantity of sightings,claims and various unexplained accounts to strengthen their belief whilst the Skpetic uses the lack of conclusive evidence to strengthen their beliefs.

clear as mud?....thought so

Yes... For me it will take more than the stuff that propells belief to claim that I know something.

Im not willing to "read between the lines" or to take that gigantic leap of faith... not when it comes to this.

This is where science, and its method, comes in... peer review and all that.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Hazzard

[Space Commander Travis]

Hal Puthoff made this observation about UFOs, which struck a chord with me:

"One of the most consistently-observed characteristics of UFO flight is a ubiquitous pattern in which they tilt to perform all maneuvers. Specifically, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, and descend by "falling-leaf" or "silver-dollar-wobble" motions. Detailed analysis by Hill shows that such motion is inconsistent with aerodynamic requirements, but totally consistent with some form of repulsive force-field propulsion. Not satisfied with paper analyses alone, Hill arranged to have various forms of jet-supported and rotor-supported circular flying platforms built and tested. Hill himself acted as test pilot in early, originally-classified, versions, and found the above motions the most economical for control purposes. Pictures of these platforms are included in the text."

The one I saw was also level when it hovered, and it stayed in the same position for ten to fiftten minutes, but then it tilted upward at a 45 degree angle just before it took off at a tremendous rate of speed.

Which is rather like how the Harrier* flies in the hover; it balances on a great blast of jet thrust, and from what they say it handles much in the way as described there. See also the Flying Bedstead.

*RIP, thanks to David Cameron

[quillius]

Yeah, or anyone else doing field research of UAP's.

That's correct.

There being different types of plasma that have been observed, some of these share characteristics with the object I observed while others do not.

In general, I'd tend to say no. But that's a difficult question to answer definitely with so little to go on.

No, it did come slowly meandering close to ground from the North, it left by making a b-line to the North at about 20-30 ft above the ground. At first it moved very slowly, then it shot across hundreds of feet in just a split second, then when it left it was moving pretty fast but not as fast as it had when it shot over to hover near us.

No problem. Thanks.

Thank you LS. Sorry I am a little confused here, is it that you are saying it lowered to the ground slowly then came over to you quickly and left quickly, or it came over quickly then lowered to the ground slowly then shot of rapidly? Just trying to picture it in my head exactly.

From what you say it would strike me that it was displaying a certain element of intelligence....do you concur with this statement? If so, (with my limited knowledge of plasma) I do not see how plasma could act in this way. I know you dont know the answer but I am just probing more for your gut feeling.

again thanks!

[TheMcGuffin]

That's an interesting angle, yes. I suppose that probes or exploration craft would be designed to cope with a whole range of conditions, wouldn't they; if something was capable of oeprating in, say, Jupiter's atmosphere, (not because theat's where they're from, but for purposes of exploration, say), then it would account for a lot, wouldn't it. It'd make sesne to have a standard design of craft for all conditions, rather than having one designed for earth , one for jupiter, etc.

In his review of Hill's book, Puthoff concluded that: "Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some 'unconventional flying objects' is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way."

[quillius]

Yes... For me it will take more than the stuff that propells belief to claim that I know something.

Im not willing to "read between the lines" or to take that gigantic leap of faith... not when it comes to this.

This is where science, and its method, comes in... peer review and all that.

Fair enough! like I said I am obviously more easily pleased! belief is easy to have.....knowledge takes time and effort! (not that I am avoiding it)

[Space Commander Travis]

Hazz, you may not have noticed the question I posed on the preceding page. Whose word, if anyone's, would you (or would anyone else who might like to answer) accept if they said that extraterrestrial visitation was a reality, if there was no actual hardware to back it up? Since, as I said, people usually tend to accept the word of experts when it comes to questions about physics or science that you couldn't confirm by actually looking at it yourself.

[DONTEATUS]

Not any of our Government Wackos !! This is where all the confusion begins!

[bmk1245]

[...]

Now, can you notice the differences betreen these two photos?

[...]

Lets bastardize top image - match brightness/contrast to that of the bottom one:

... and convert to BW:

Voila! You now have to two images with ET vehicles.

Edited January 18, 2011 by bmk1245

[lost_shaman]

Thank you LS. Sorry I am a little confused here, is it that you are saying it lowered to the ground slowly then came over to you quickly and left quickly, or it came over quickly then lowered to the ground slowly then shot of rapidly? Just trying to picture it in my head exactly.

From what you say it would strike me that it was displaying a certain element of intelligence....do you concur with this statement? If so, (with my limited knowledge of plasma) I do not see how plasma could act in this way. I know you dont know the answer but I am just probing more for your gut feeling.

again thanks!

At first when we noticed it, it was far off to the North and there were small salt cedar trees and a creek between us and it. It was close to the ground when we first noticed it and we where just thinking it was maybe a car with only one headlight or something coming down a North-South road. It got closer and was obviously not a car but was still close to the ground. It got closer to the point it was actually in the same field that we were in, and I thought it might have been a person carrying a lantern or something. So at first it was always close to the ground, we only realized it was a UFO after it gained altitude. It was at the time it began to gain altitude that it shot across the field and hovered near us at about 20 ft above the ground. Then after hovering there for about 5 minutes, it made the b-line back to the North.

When this first happened it seemed to me that it was technological and acting in an intelligent manner. But that first impression is probably not accurate when you consider that a charged plasma could potentially behave in a similar manner.

[TheMcGuffin]

At first when we noticed it, it was far off to the North and there were small salt cedar trees and a creek between us

When this first happened it seemed to me that it was technological and acting in an intelligent manner. But that first impression is probably not accurate when you consider that a charged plasma could potentially behave in a similar manner.

And want if the high energy plasmas or ionization reported with some UFOs are related to their propulsion systems, as Hill and Puthoff claimed?

I didn't see any sign of plasma or an ionization layer with the UFO I saw, however.

[badeskov]

Lets bastardize top image - match brightness/contrast to that of the bottom one:

... and convert to BW:

Voila! You now have to two images with ET vehicles.

Nice job bmk

Cheers,

Badeskov

[quillius]

At first when we noticed it, it was far off to the North and there were small salt cedar trees and a creek between us and it. It was close to the ground when we first noticed it and we where just thinking it was maybe a car with only one headlight or something coming down a North-South road. It got closer and was obviously not a car but was still close to the ground. It got closer to the point it was actually in the same field that we were in, and I thought it might have been a person carrying a lantern or something. So at first it was always close to the ground, we only realized it was a UFO after it gained altitude. It was at the time it began to gain altitude that it shot across the field and hovered near us at about 20 ft above the ground. Then after hovering there for about 5 minutes, it made the b-line back to the North.

When this first happened it seemed to me that it was technological and acting in an intelligent manner. But that first impression is probably not accurate when you consider that a charged plasma could potentially behave in a similar manner.

For some reason I have always pictured that it happened in the daytime, I now know it was dark, at least dark enough for a car to have headlights on. You mention fields so I assume that there were large open areas around you, correct? I will make one more assumption, you say it hovered near you about 20ft up, this would indicate that it made its way over to you. Can you estimate the distance it covered to get to this point from its original position from which you first saw it? what I am driving at here is seeing the probability of the said object stopping where it did (near you) and hover for five minutes, before moving rapidly away. How many other possible places could it have stopped so that you would not get the impression that it came directly towards/near you? Now if plasma is not attracted to people, then the probility of its stopping where it did, adds to the object possibly being intelligently controlled. Add to this the glowing spikes, which I think you said were evenly spaced, (I guess of equal size) also works against plasma explanation.

[skyeagle409]

Lets bastardize top image - match brightness/contrast to that of the bottom one:

... and convert to BW:

Voila! You now have to two images with ET vehicles.

Flares leaving smoke trails is that reality. No sense playing around with images where the shoe doesn't fit.

[skyeagle409]

Nice job bmk

Cheers,

Badeskov

Bad job. The lower lights are not flares, andt the alignment still doesn't match. Big difference.

Edited January 18, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

Flares leaving smoke trails is that reality. No sense playing around with images where the shoe doesn't fit.

So you would see the smoke on a flare that was 50-70 miles away?

[skyeagle409]

Mitchell: There’s more nonsense out there about this than there is real knowledge, but it is a real phenomenon and there are a few of us (who know). It’s been covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so. But slowly it’s leaked out and some of us are privileged to have been briefed on some of it. I happen to have grown up in Roswell, New Mexico, where presumably the Roswell incident of 1947 took place and I’m quite knowledgeable about it there since I grew up there. But I’ve also been in military circles and intelligence circles that know below the surface of what has been public knowledge that, yes, we have been visited.

And, he is correct. Our inteligence and military services have known for decades that ET visitation is a fact.

EM would not put himself out there on this subject unless he was VERY sure of his facts...IMO...

Yepper, you've got that right.

[skyeagle409]

So you would see the smoke on a flare that was 50-70 miles away?

Those lights you see in the video, are lights that were only a few miles from the camera and not taken from the BMGR, which is nowhere near Phoenix anyway. It seems to me that some skeptics thought that the BMGR, was located directly behind that mountain, when in fact, it was more than 50 miles away.

Edited January 18, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yet he was pointing his telescope at the famed Phoenix Lights.

Had to be airliners or private aircraf he was observing over Phoenix, because the BMGR is nowhere near the Phoenix area, but more than 50 miles away.

Skeptics thought that the BMGR was located near Phoenix, behind that mountain, when it fact, it is nowhere near Phoenix. Look on the aviation sectional map to see just how far BMGR, really is from Phoenix. Not even in the same area, which is yet another clue that those lights were not flares from BMGR.

Edited January 18, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

No it is not, it is two different events. If you wish to change the witnesses, please advise and I am happy to accomodate.

Did witnesses report lights over Phoenix?

[skyeagle409]

I don't disagree per se, I originally thought what I witnessed was exotic technology! BUT, that first impression doesn't hold up as being conclusive when one examines all the facts and all the evidence.

For example, appearing to be 'solid' does not prima facie 'prove' E.T. and exclude Plasma, nor does it 'prove' Plasma and exclude E.T. You need something else to make your point. So far you've failed.

There are valid reasons as to why highly exerienced military and commercial aircrews have thrown in the towel in ET's corner. One of which, they described objects of structure, and, described details on those objects as well, in addition to their observations as far as responses were in regards to their aircraft controlled inputs.

Those objects are well known for playing 'cat and mouse' games with aircraft around the world. I have also mentioned the process of elimination, which was brought out years earlier.

The Motion Study

The study covered several hundred of our most detailed UFO reports. By a very critical process of elimination, based on the motion of the reported UFO's, Fournet told the panel how he and any previous analysis by Project Blue Book had been disregarded and how those reports that could have been caused by any one of the many dozen known objects - balloons, airplanes, astronomical bodies, etc., were sifted out. This sifting took quite a toll, and the study ended up with only ten or twenty reports that fell into the "Unknown" category. Since such critical methods of evaluation had been used, these few reports proved beyond a doubt that the UFO's were intelligently controlled by persons with brains equal to or far surpassing ours.

The next step in the study, Fournet explained, was to find out where they came from. "Earthlings" were eliminated, leaving the final answer - spacemen.

http://www.nicap.org...uppelt_orig.htm