Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[booNyzarC]

I agree with that.

Also... When talking about a 'UFO' video you should never 'zoom' in or out, you should always use a tripod, and always keep something measurable in the frame like a tree or a house.

Most 'UFO' video violates these simple requests making them much harder to analyze.

Yes, it does make them difficult to analyze in one sense, but it also helps in some cases because without the zoom it is almost impossible to see what is being filmed at times. It is one of those you're damned if you do and damned if you don't situations in a way.

[booNyzarC]

I agree LS, I have been watching the video (Hamilton King one, I think) and I am trying my hardest to try and line up the lights(flares) with the first bit of footage shot from same location. I notice that there are some trees that block parts of the mountain top but I cant seem to make their position out on the night time version. Again this has probably alreaady been discussed/analysed but I had a spare two cents

Bruce Maccabee discusses the positioning a bit here, which may help in your efforts to line up the flares. That is the addendum to his full report, available here.

[quillius]

I just watched the video again and confirmed that it happens at multiple points, not just the moment that they start talking about it at around 1:35. Also noticed that the guy who said he saw them turn into spheres around the same time, Bill, mentioned seconds earlier that "Okay, I got 'em in the scope." (edit) Which tells me that Bill was probably similarly zooming in and out on the lights, producing the same visual effect. (/edit)

Ok thanks. And yes I am sure they discuss someone using a telescope also (must be Bill). Although I think the flaring is different from that seen at other times in that video, (could be my mind playing tricks on me mind you).

Also coincidental it happens to both Bill and Camera man at the same time and why he never mentions them turning into spheres at any other time when he is zooming in and out??? considering as you rightly point out it happens at multiple points.

Lastly, again not confident here, but it seems when they are doing so he is not zooming in or out, although I know this is hard to be conclusive about without any line of reference in shot.

[quillius]

Bruce Maccabee discusses the positioning a bit here, which may help in your efforts to line up the flares. That is the addendum to his full report, available here.

great stuff, cheers Boon for the effort in posting the links for me.

I was paying attention the first time round but I think I was skimming mostly due to the fact you guys seemed so convinced they were flares and had the mathematical calcualtions backing you.

[DONTEATUS]

great stuff, cheers Boon for the effort in posting the links for me.

I was paying attention the first time round but I think I was skimming mostly due to the fact you guys seemed so convinced they were flares and had the mathematical calcualtions backing you.

Its good to Look deeper even If one is convinced,It seems funny that the FAA,DOD,ect,say they dont have records and If there were a request of radar tapes by March28th there would be public record? This in its sself sends a warneing Flag up dosnt it ?

Remember the Man Gets His way all Day,All Night ! All the Time.

But Hay ! Whom are we to question where all our Tax money goes?

POKE ! POKE !

[booNyzarC]

Its good to Look deeper even If one is convinced,It seems funny that the FAA,DOD,ect,say they dont have records and If there were a request of radar tapes by March28th there would be public record? This in its sself sends a warneing Flag up dosnt it ?

Remember the Man Gets His way all Day,All Night ! All the Time.

But Hay ! Whom are we to question where all our Tax money goes?

POKE ! POKE !

No warning flag at all. Records like these aren't retained unless a valid reason is given to hang on to them. Keep in mind how many records we would be talking about. If the FAA indefinitely retained RADAR data collected from every airport it would be an organizational nightmare, require a lot of manpower (time is money remember), and they'd need a place to store it. It just wouldn't be practical.

[quillius]

Its good to Look deeper even If one is convinced,It seems funny that the FAA,DOD,ect,say they dont have records and If there were a request of radar tapes by March28th there would be public record? This in its sself sends a warneing Flag up dosnt it ?

Remember the Man Gets His way all Day,All Night ! All the Time.

But Hay ! Whom are we to question where all our Tax money goes?

POKE ! POKE !

Hey D, yes I do like to make my own mind up on things, as its been proven many times here that things change....for example..

Roswell, everyone (nearly) agreed it was a balloon for years, then LS comes up with his theory and now that is also a viable possibility.

BOLA, everyone (nearly) agreed there was no object and it was jittery nerves plus a balloon instigating it. Now I think people are at least open to the possibility it could have been UAP.

I do think the Airforce and governments way of covering things has fuelled the ETH, for example if BOLA was UAP, then they could have considered it ET as plasma was not an option. On this basis they tried to cover it with confusion and disinformation, without realising that it was just a natural phenomena...quite ironic really (IF TRUE)

[quillius]

No warning flag at all. Records like these aren't retained unless a valid reason is given to hang on to them. Keep in mind how many records we would be talking about. If the FAA indefinitely retained RADAR data collected from every airport it would be an organizational nightmare, require a lot of manpower (time is money remember), and they'd need a place to store it. It just wouldn't be practical.

I believe D was alluding to the fact if there were no records to begin with how could they have retained them if requested?

Reading back , you may well have understood this Boon and you are saying that no one would know if there were any records unless specifically requested?!?!

[mcrom901]

Its good to Look deeper even If one is convinced,It seems funny that the FAA,DOD,ect,say they dont have records and If there were a request of radar tapes by March28th there would be public record? This in its sself sends a warneing Flag up dosnt it ?

lol... that reminded me of the following....

http://www.theblackvault.com/m/articles/view/UFO-Case-Japanese-Airlines-JAL1628-November-17-1986

[DBunker]

Absolutely, boon. Few people here post like peri, Cz, MID, Emma, Badeskov, and shaman, etc. I always enjoy reading their posts.

There are to many to mention as I dont want to exclude anyone... you know who you are.

...... and me, of course!!

Seriously, hazz, I agree with you on all those guys. Best of the Best.

[booNyzarC]

I believe D was alluding to the fact if there were no records to begin with how could they have retained them if requested?

Reading back , you may well have understood this Boon and you are saying that no one would know if there were any records unless specifically requested?!?!

I'm not sure if I correctly understood what D was saying or not to be completely honest, but the point I was making was that there likely were records that were retained for a period of time (up to March 28th) and then those records were destroyed because they don't keep records older that 20 days. I'm making assumptions with that, based on the statement that if they had requested said records prior to the 28th they would have been able to provide them.

I don't know what the official policy is on RADAR record keeping for the FAA, I'm just extrapolating from the statement.

Hope that clarifies.

[quillius]

I'm not sure if I correctly understood what D was saying or not to be completely honest, but the point I was making was that there likely were records that were retained for a period of time (up to March 28th) and then those records were destroyed because they don't keep records older that 20 days. I'm making assumptions with that, based on the statement that if they had requested said records prior to the 28th they would have been able to provide them.

I don't know what the official policy is on RADAR record keeping for the FAA, I'm just extrapolating from the statement.

Hope that clarifies.

Hey boon, I have also re-read his comment which stated

Its good to Look deeper even If one is convinced,It seems funny that the FAA,DOD,ect,say they dont have records and If there were a request of radar tapes by March28th there would be public record?

Its the bolded part, I assume this would have to read 'never had records' as opposed to 'dont have records'.

I note you say ' there likely were records' but I think D was saying they said there were no records then they contradict by saying if someone had requested them there would be records

[booNyzarC]

I understand what you are saying in terms of interpreting D's intention. No worries from me. But that is beside the point in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with the FAA ever stating that they never had records for the date of March 13, 1997. I'm not saying that this statement wasn't made, but if it was I've not seen it.

[skyeagle409]

LOL, I am sure that you would be happy to accept it if I can work an Alien in there somewhere!

Well, you know, we shared the airbase at Phan Rang airbase with the Aussies for a year in Vietnam, and we watched flares for most of the year, so we knew what flares looked like and what flares do not look like, and the lights over Phoenix were not flares.

Edited April 27, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Absolutely. However, I want Sky to prove this to himself and everyone else by telling us where the 'Aliens' are in the line-up I've posted.

ETA: He say's he can tell just by looking that these are not Flares, so I assume he can also 'see' which of these are the alledged 'Aliens' then and which are not.

Well, there was a reason why I posted the photo comparison between the "Phoenix Lights," with a photo of real flares above to point out the major differences between flares and those lights. It was all very simple and the major differences were plainly evident.

[skyeagle409]

As Lost Shaman has repeatedly pointed out, what we are seeing, is what you are seeing, and that is taken with a camera, not the naked eye, and has different proporties. So what you have seen is irrelevant.

What I don't see, are flares. There are major differences between flares and those lights.

[booNyzarC]

*snipped unimportant and unrelated information*

, and the lights over Phoenix were not flares.

Yes they were flares, but they weren't over Phoenix, they were over the BGR.

[booNyzarC]

Well, there was a reason why I posted the photo comparison between the "Phoenix Lights," with a photo of real flares above to point out the major differences between flares and those lights. It was all very simple and the major differences were plainly evident.

The major difference is that the photos you posted as comparisons weren't taken from 50-70 miles away. Just like the majority of your debate points, this is a dishonest and flawed comparison.

What I don't see, are flares. There are major differences between flares and those lights.

There is no difference between flares and those lights. Because those lights... were flares.

[skyeagle409]

The major difference is that the photos you posted as comparisons weren't taken from 50-70 miles away. Just like the majority of your debate points, this is a dishonest and flawed comparison.

Sorry, but those lights were in no way, 60-70 miles away, and it seems that the skeptics are missing another thing as well. What did I say about time/distance measurements before?

There is no difference between flares and those lights. Because those lights... were flares.

Nope, and note the differences.

[psyche101]

Going back to how we can distinguish between 'intelligent control' as opposed to 'repulsion and attraction', I do not think this is as an impossible task as is being suggested or at least implied.

It is just basic laws of magnetism opposite poles attract, like poles repel. The earth has a magnetic influence, should the anomaly rotate, it seems to me to be quite plausible that you would then get both reactions.

[skyeagle409]

Yes they were flares, but they weren't over Phoenix, they were over the BGR.

Nope, and I have seen flares at 15 miles and know that those lights are not flares anywhere near the BGR, 50-70 miles away.

The Air Force threw out the bait and there were those who took that bait and ran off with it. After all, why do you think it took the Air Force so long to come up with a cover story?

Edited April 27, 2011 by skyeagle409

[psyche101]

I agree hence why I said many aspects of this case, not strictly just the sighting of the light/object itself, in addition the rest of the sentence for which you quoted did say

'I think that there are many aspects to this case that dont point to plasma, along with features described by officers not observed with plasma before.

I also finished the sentence with 'observed with plasma before' which I think is still correct. what plasma could 'potentially' be observed doing is another story IMO.

I think its important as stated before, that all aspects of a case should be considered, whilst it is hasty to generalise I do not think I actually did that, at least not intentionally.

I feel it is just as hasty to dismiss some of these cases because of 'some' similarities to plasma.

Overall though I do understand the point you are making and I am in agreement.

Hi Quillus

Which aspects in particular? When discussing the portage county case earlier, I found an array of recorded activity from Hessdalen that mimics what has been described by officers.

As the anomaly is a natural one and beyond our control, it is unlikely that any instance will be repeated perfectly. It woud be like looking for 2 identical snowflakes.

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Sorry, but those lights were in no way, 60-70 miles away, and it seems that the skeptics are missing another thing as well. What did I say about time/distance measurements before?

Nope, and note the differences.

Edited Quote: Link To Completely Useless Photo

Show us the math skyeagle, or shut your beak.

[booNyzarC]

Nope, and I have seen flares at 15 miles and know that those lights are not flares anywhere near the BGR, 50-70 miles away.

The Air Force threw out the bait and there were those who took that bait and ran off with it. After all, why do you think it took the Air Force so long to come up with a cover story?

How does your seeing flares at 15 miles compare to flares viewed at 50-70 miles? Here is a hint... IT DOESN'T.

It didn't take all that long for the Air Force to explain the situation. And come to think of it... why did the air traffic controller state that they looked like they could be flares at the very moment he was looking at them thru binoculars?

[skyeagle409]

Show us the math skyeagle, or shut your beak.

I had shown you that photo of the Chicago skyline to prove my point and it didi't even have a mountain between the camera and the skyline.

Edited April 27, 2011 by skyeagle409