Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[booNyzarC 3,014]

I have shown the photos, and as I have said before, that photo is worth a thousand words, and numbers. I matched the observations of the photo with what I was observing behind my own residence in regards to distant objects above the horizon and taking notes.

Once again, the majority of people who have lived in Phoenix for years, have never seen military flares before and look where the BGR is located in regards to Phoenix,. That is a major clue right. The the number jived, then flare drops would have been regulary observed in Phoenix on a regular basis, which they are not, and why they have never seen flares before.

You've got a big mountain blocking the area toward the BFR ,which the folks of Phoenix cannot view from one side of that mountain, and why I asked you if you have ever been to Phoenix.

Wow, I must be psychic or something...

Math? Can you produce some math? Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but when they are your words it amounts to nothing. Produce some math and then we can talk.

Give us some math. Until you do so, all of your lackluster attempts will fall short. It really is that simple.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Math? Can you produce some math? Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but when they are your words it amounts to nothing. Produce some math and then we can talk.

Sorry, but I did provide numbers for use in the side profile depicition of the area between Phoenix and the BGR. A simple straight line from Phoenix to the BGR would have proven my case that you cannot see flares over the BGR from Phoenix from normal altitude release.

On another note, were you aware that the Air Force has conflicting explanations regarding the "Phoenix Lights?" That was further evidence of the Air Force's deception.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Wow, I must be psychic or something...

Give us some math. Until you do so, all of your lackluster attempts will fall short. It really is that simple.

Just do the profile deptiction with the numbers given. Personally, I don't think any skeptics will provide that profile on this thread for obvious reasons because it will show that any object over the BGR cannot be seen from down in Phoenix, which once again, is why most people of Phoenix have never seen seen military flares before from over the BGR.

Edited April 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC 3,014]

Sorry, but I did provide numbers for use in the side profile depicition of the area between Phoenix and the BGR. A simple straight line from Phoenix to the BGR would have proven my case that you cannot see flares over the BGR from Phoenix from normal altitude release.

On another note, were you aware that the Air Force has conflicting explanations regarding the "Phoenix Lights?" That was further evidence of the Air Force's deception.

You didn't produce any math skyeagle. Until you do so you will fail. Oh hell, who are we kidding? You can't produce any math to back up your ridiculous claims. The fact that you keep carrying on about this nonsense without backing it up is hilarious. Do you even realize what a laughing stock you have made yourself with this? Hilarious!

[booNyzarC 3,014]

Just do the profile deptiction with the numbers given. Personally, I don't think any skeptics will provide that profile on this thread for obvious reasons because it will show that any object over the BGR cannot be seen from down in Phoenix, which once again, is why most people of Phoenix have never seen seen military flares before from over the BGR.

Wow, I really must be psychic after all... I'm working on that. Here is a very rough preview...

I plan on being far more precise with the curvature and distances with the final product, but considering that you asked for it... enjoy.

Oh, and if you can produce some math, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers.

[lost_shaman 1,515]

Once again, the majority of people who have lived in Phoenix for years, have never seen military flares before and look where the BGR is located in regards to Phoenix,. That is a major clue right. The the number jived, then flare drops would have been regulary observed in Phoenix on a regular basis, which they are not, and why they have never seen flares before.

Here is the thing though Sky. You are misunderstanding the 'Operational' use of a LUU-2 Flare with the 'Ditching' of a LUU-2 Flare. If the latter, a Pilot has the option of ejecting and burning off these Flares at Altitude if needed. Honestly it is that simple.

[mcrom901 768]

Ok I see what you mean!

But Im still all messed up from mcrom`s pick,of Pic`s,Of all that Biology !

Now Im side tracked Way off the subject?

Im afterall one of the Best Believers ever ! I seenit !

just for relieving the senses....

imagination also lights up the visual cortex...

[Vlad the Mighty 33,391]

Well, thank you for talking about something other than endless arguing about FLARES, and considering the USO phenomenon, Psyche.

Thinking about the examples quoted,

Are we at the same site?

Are we at the same site?

he saw a saucer-shaped silver disk fly by him under water with lights on it,

sighted a huge disc beneath the surface of the water. The object, glowing with a soft, greenish light, paced the ship

Ira Pete, the owner of the Ruby E, said "I hooked into something and pulled the stern off." He said he had no idea what the "something" was.

The crew said the object was either a submarine or a huge whale.

The helmsman of the trawler Silverö told the press that a light appeared just before the collision and then disappeared. It was visible for about ten minutes.

Then he looked ahead and saw a greenish light inside the water. However, this mysterious object disappeared so soon.

he told me that he and his fellow crewmen saw strange shapes of lights from under the sea.

one can see a dark object moving under the water. The object moves at a high speed to the left. But it is impossible to claim that this was a submarine and the matter remains unclear.

I do have to say that most of those seem to come under the category of "lights in the sky" (or in this case, the sea), and the couple that do seem to be tangible objects, there doesn't seem to be any conclusive proof that they were craft rather than, say, whales, and we know that tectonic actviity underwater can cause all sorts of submarine disturbances, so i think, sorry as I am to say it, Pax, the PLASMA phenomenon must be a candidate here.

Yes, you have me called there, I do not see how any being can get around FTL, I think that is a pipe dream. Matter remains at a constant in the Universe. E=MC2 gains support as time rolls on. I do not think imagining the impossible is fruitful. To me, one might as well look forward to basking on the surface of the sun naked. Not to be rude but do you have a good understanding of Einsteins theories?

Like i've said so many times, personally I think FLT and the Speed of light is neither here nor there. If any civilisation did devote vast energy and resources to overcoming FTL, they'd still need to take years and years to get anywhere, so I'm pretty sure that if interstellar travel is at all possible, some other means would be found to do it. I think that the interdimensional question, and my idea of reality existing on a spectrum, like light, is something that might be worth looking at.

Or, of coruse, there's the alternative suggestion; what if they don't need to come hundreds of light years, and they come form somewhere a lot nearer?

Inter-dimensional as described by Jacques Vallee is an ideal I do not know enough about to comment on but I do find his theories encouraging and beyond the square. Be he right or wrong, I think this is the sort of thinking that will move an understanding closer.

They may exist on different dimensions, and sort of be able to fade in and out of orus as they wish, or perhaps they might use different dimensions (if we look at them as being at different parts of a "spectrum" of reality) to travel to and for. Either way, it's an exciting idea, and needn't offend our good friend Einstein.

[lost_shaman 1,515]

Either way, it's an exciting idea, and needn't offend our good friend Einstein.

Einstein would not be offended, he said the faster you travel in relation to a 'Frame' to 'c' the more Time Dilates.

[quillius 1,925]

I think that is a pipe Inter-dimensional as described by Jacques Vallee is an ideal I do not know enough about to comment on but I do find his theories encouraging and beyond the square. Be he right or wrong, I think this is the sort of thinking that will move an understanding closer.

I know little of Gilafer, in fact had I not visited the Abductee thread out of boredom yesterday I would not know who you are talking about. Again I do not know enough about the character to comment but I am extremely dubious on abduction tales.

Peopl who do give me hope that we may have contact one day are the likes of Stephen Hawking, and their (what I find) More rational approach to a logical sequence of events that one might expect from an intelligent species, and non intelligent species. I bought his latest series Into The Universe last night. Looking forward to viewing that.

Hey Psyche, Just had a thought, it would be very interesting to know what cases that Jacques Vallee was alluding to when mentioning metallic debris. Hessdalen project has suggested that particles are deposited by certain plasma down in the valley, so I think it would be prudent to see if any correlation exists between the cases JV is discussing and the characteristics of plasma in Hessdalen.

Would be good to know LS's take on this also.

As for Gilfaer's thread, I too am very dubious, however he does seem to handle himself very well and it is an interesting thread.

[someoldguy 1]

I think it would be prudent to see if any correlation exists between the cases JV is discussing and the characteristics of plasma in Hessdalen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Massimo Teodorani mentioned something about metallic particles found in Hessdalen after an ALP sighting.

Sorry. I know this probably isn't about ET.

[Hazzard 1,517]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Massimo Teodorani mentioned something about metallic particles found in Hessdalen after an ALP sighting.

Sorry. I know this probably isn't about ET.

I wouldnt worry to much about it, oldguy. To this date not one of these cases can be linked to ET.

[quillius 1,925]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Massimo Teodorani mentioned something about metallic particles found in Hessdalen after an ALP sighting.

Sorry. I know this probably isn't about ET.

Hi sameoldguy, this was actually my point. I know M.Teodorani has discussed this part of that phenomena hence why I was suggesting that the cases where debris has been found (as mentioned by Jacques V) could actually be a form of plasma that has left the particles. I am wandering what cases and if those cases have described a UFO that could actually be plasma as opposed to anything extra terrestrial.

[mcrom901 768]

I wouldnt worry to much about it, oldguy. To this date not one of these cases can be linked to ET.

worry?

[DBunker 875]

I wouldnt worry to much about it, oldguy. To this date not one of these cases can be linked to ET.

Amen.

Soon though, we might get that one case, that provides the solid scientific hard evidence we all are looking for. No matter how the evil debunkers and close minded skeptics are trying to debunk it.... it will say ET only.

[someoldguy 1]

Hi sameoldguy, this was actually my point. I know M.Teodorani has discussed this part of that phenomena hence why I was suggesting that the cases where debris has been found (as mentioned by Jacques V) could actually be a form of plasma that has left the particles. I am wandering what cases and if those cases have described a UFO that could actually be plasma as opposed to anything extra terrestrial.

I thought that's what you were referring to.

To my mind this ALP phenomenon is strange enough as it is. Enough to ponder without having to bring in any ETH.

[Hazzard 1,517]

Amen.

Soon though, we might get that one case, that provides the solid scientific hard evidence we all are looking for. No matter how the evil debunkers and close minded skeptics are trying to debunk it.... it will say ET only.

Or not...

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PHILIP J. KLASS.

To ufologists who publicly criticize me, ... or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath:

THE UFO CURSE: No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today.

As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Here is the thing though Sky. You are misunderstanding the 'Operational' use of a LUU-2 Flare with the 'Ditching' of a LUU-2 Flare. If the latter, a Pilot has the option of ejecting and burning off these Flares at Altitude if needed. Honestly it is that simple.

No, I understand what was said about ditching the flares before landing, but, that close to DMAFB, they would not be ditching at such a high altitude. One another note, the Air Force first denied any involvement, and then, said that an A-10, was responsible, and now, it was a flight of A-10s that were ditching flares.

Well, it is not practical to ditch flares behind one another at night due to the fac t that interferes with the pilot's night vision and, would not have been ditching flares that night in such a manner, and, there is more to that story as well, which I have already brought up. So what we have here is, the initial denial of the Air Force, and then, a single A-10 dropping flares on a mission, which would have been below 6000 feet, and now, a flight of A-10s ditching flares. Look at that video again. That is not a flight of A-10s ditching flares at 10 PM, and there was another reason as well that I have brought up in that regard.

The Air Force now has multiple explanations for the "Phoenix Lights" and even a denial of involvement for what had happened that night. It is clearly evident that Air Force is covering up the Phoenix sightings. On another note, and looking at that video again, at 50 miles away, what is the distance between the two outer lights, one on the extreme far left and on the other, on the far right, if they were 50 miles away. There will be some time / distance calculations in regards to what I have said, later.

In regards to the side profile depiction of Phoenix and of the BGR, there is a reason why I did not say anything about the curvature of the earth in regards to the side profile depiction of the two areas. I only provided the elevations.

What this all amounts too, the Air Force did it again and mislead some people that flares were responsible for the sightings, but, that was not the case at all.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

I wouldnt worry to much about it, oldguy. To this date not one of these cases can be linked to ET.

Apparently, that is not true and the skeptics need to learn lessons, and not learn them the hard way , as has been the case more than 40 times as listed where they said this, and said that, and later, learned the lesson the hard way when the rest of the story was later revealed, but I still think it is unfair for you to think that I was just playing games by withholding certain information as I don't see it as my fault for the way the skeptics were responding before I pulled out the other book.

Edited April 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS 3,516]

worry?

Or Dont worry,Be Happy .

Great find mcrom on the ode to the Brain! I Love it !

[Hazzard 1,517]

Apparently, that is not true and the skeptics need to learn lessons, and not learn them the hard way , as has been the case more than 40 times as listed where they said this, and said that, and later, learned the lesson the hard way when the rest of the story was later revealed, but I still think it is unfair for you to think that I was just playing games by withholding certain information as I don't see it as my fault for the way the skeptics were responding before I pulled out the other book.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...

To tell you the truth, Skyeagle, I dont "enjoy" your hand waiving/song and dance routine as much as I used to.

In fact, I find your hysterical UFO mantra rather dull these days, and quite embarrasing.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Hazzard

[booNyzarC 3,014]

No, I understand what was said about ditching the flares before landing, but, that close to DMAFB, they would not be ditching at such a high altitude. One another note, the Air Force first denied any involvement, and then, said that an A-10, was responsible, and now, it was a flight of A-10s that were ditching flares.

Finally you at least acknowledge that you understand the notion that the flares could have been jettisoned. Thank you for that skyeagle, much appreciated. I actually consider that progress.

Regarding the inconsistencies, it is fairly simple. The initial people asked simply didn't know because the A-10's that ditched the flares were based out of Tuscon, not out of Luke Air Force Base. The people initially asked responded as expected, by describing operations run from Luke. There is no conspiracy here, it is pretty simple really.

Well, it is not practical to ditch flares behind one another at night due to the fac t that interferes with the pilot's night vision and, would not have been ditching flares that night in such a manner, and, there is more to that story as well, which I have already brought up. So what we have here is, the initial denial of the Air Force, and then, a single A-10 dropping flares on a mission, which would have been below 6000 feet, and now, a flight of A-10s ditching flares. Look at that video again. That is not a flight of A-10s ditching flares at 10 PM, and there was another reason as well that I have brought up in that regard.

This argument doesn't make any sense. Ditching flares at night interferes with the pilot's night vision? You are joking right? When flares are deployed at night for legitimate use are you saying it doesn't interfere with their night vision? Do you see how this argument doesn't make sense?

I explained the initial confusion regarding the conflicting answers provided when Luke was originally asked. Very simple.

The Air Force now has multiple explanations for the "Phoenix Lights" and even a denial of involvement for what had happened that night. It is clearly evident that Air Force is covering up the Phoenix sightings. On another note, and looking at that video again, at 50 miles away, what is the distance between the two outer lights, one on the extreme far left and on the other, on the far right, if they were 50 miles away. There will be some time / distance calculations in regards to what I have said, later.

No cover-up. Very simple reasons for the initial confusion.

As for the distance between flare 1 and flare 2 has been estimated to be about 7.5 miles. I'm working on a recalculation over the weekend hopefully to confirm or more precisely identify this distance, but as far as rough estimates go it is probably fairly accurate.

In regards to the side profile depiction of Phoenix and of the BGR, there is a reason why I did not say anything about the curvature of the earth in regards to the side profile depiction of the two areas. I only provided the elevations.

Speaking of side profile depictions... I've done a bit more with one.

Consider this image (courtesy of Google Earth) showing an elevation profile from Krzyston's house at 1640' elevation (1637' in the profile) extending about 80.3 miles at a heading of 205.26 degrees and a straight line representing line of sight above the highest point of elevation (about 4200') between him and the last flare dropped (light 9 in the Maccabee analysis).

Click Me for a Larger Version of the Same Image

This picture of the curve is grossly exaggerated by a magnitude of about 45 times, to 1.64 degrees, because the actual curvature would be visually negligible at a more accurate calculation of 0.036 degrees (and the lowest I could get it to even go with GIMP was somewhere around 0.14 degrees, virtually invisible curve).

Even with this exaggeration, at a rounded distance of 80 miles and not considering atmospheric refraction (thank you for the terminology correction bmk1245, very much appreciated! ) we can see that the lights would still be visible at an altitude of about 9700' or 9800'. Considering refraction, light 9 would still be visible after dropping below this altitude as well.

I haven't done the math yet to compare with the visual of this sideview from Google Earth, but I doubt if it is too far off.

What this all amounts too, the Air Force did it again and mislead some people that flares were responsible for the sightings, but, that was not the case at all.

Nope, as addressed earlier, there was no cover-up. It was just simple confusion and to be fully expected.

[booNyzarC 3,014]

Ok Sky, if you are not going to answer then the only clue to distance from the Camera to the Mountain you gave was "between" so I'll assume 25 miles.

At 25 miles (assuming the Camera is near sea level), 1,586.9 ft of this Mountain extends above the Horizon. That equates to 0.6877 degrees or 3,168.8 ft @ 50 miles. Adding this figure to the 1,652.3 ft calculated in a previous post above we get 4,821.1 ft as a minimum height for an object to be seen 50 miles away and above your hypothetical Mountain 2,000 ft tall above sea level 25 miles away in the Chicago Photo you posted.

20 Miles... = 5,991.3 ft.

I realize that this calculation is somewhat moot, because it really has no relation to the Phoenix Lights, but I thought you might appreciate these elevation details. I tracked them down when skyeagle initially posted his picture but pretty much stopped there because I didn't see much point.

580ft elevation along the shore of Lake Michigan where the photo was snapped.

597ft elevation at the base of Willis Tower in Chicago.

[lost_shaman 1,515]

This picture of the curve is grossly exaggerated by a magnitude of about 45 times, to 1.64 degrees, because the actual curvature would be visually negligible at a more accurate calculation of 0.036 degrees (and the lowest I could get it to even go with GIMP was somewhere around 0.14 degrees, virtually invisible curve).

Even with this exaggeration, at a rounded distance of 80 miles and not considering atmospheric refraction (thank you for the terminology correction bmk1245, very much appreciated! ) we can see that the lights would still be visible at an altitude of about 9700' or 9800'. Considering refraction, light 9 would still be visible after dropping below this altitude as well.

Hey booN,

Can you explain a bit better what you've done here? Is this just the angular calculation of altitude before a correction for the curvature of the Earth?

Thanks.

[DONTEATUS 3,516]

Oh YEah! I said,he said,She said They said,We all Are sad.

The point of the thread BE for ER visitation,Is that the Ambalance cant get here quick enough !

Help me Someone ! Sweetpumper ! My Helmut !My B.B.Q !