Tantalising Testimony

[DBunker]

The Baltic UFO was nothing more than a speculative find. Interesting it was to a degree but the cases I am interested in involve first hand witness testimony. The difference is right there.

And Im telling you that (when it comes to this topic) of all the different form of evidence eye-witness is the LEAST credible.

[zoser]

And Im telling you that (when it comes to this topic) of all the different form of evidence eye-witness is the LEAST credible.

I can see why you say that. All I can say from living experience is that people individually do not tend to be that reliable when it comes to repeating detail. I know myself when I have been asked to do such a thing how difficult it is.

However en-mass I find the opposite to be true. That when pieces of information come to light from many unrelated people that;s when a story begins to emerge.

In mathematical terms, the error averages out and a picture emerges. Large sample sizes always give a clearer idea. Sorry for the Math language.

Edited September 10, 2012 by zoser

[psyche101]

yes, exactly. To say nothing of the fact that, 25 years or more on, none of these hypothetical super-mega aircraft apart from the F-117 have ever become public knowledge, and i'm afraid that, if they were apparently so cavalier about letting people see them, that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

What about the fact none of these mega craft are ever captured on camera? Is that not also a bit strange? That saying about the broad side of a barn comes to mind.

[Hazzard]

Hey, psyche,... your PM is not working.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Hazzard

[zoser]

What about the fact none of these mega craft are ever captured on camera? Is that not also a bit strange? That saying about the broad side of a barn comes to mind.

They are captured but not usually at close range. The two classic cases of mega low flying craft were the Hudson Valley (mid 80's) and Phoenix incidents (mid 90's). Neither were photographed at close range. It remains to be seen if they made a reappearance would they be captured with a phone cam that everyone (except me) carries around today? Even so it begs the question regarding picture quality.

[psyche101]

I agree with MacG. It appears that when incontrovertible evidence is presented the skeptic faction refuse to deal and just put forward some blanket denial while refusing even to review the material.

That is absolute codswallop Zoser, and astoundingly hypocritical. I have engaged you numerous times and whenever evidence is presented you just post another case and forget anything ever happened at all. Even over and above cases and dealing with testimony alone, I have attempted to discuss the value of eyewitness testimony and have offered examples of mass hallucination. I have shown you that TV shows outright lie to get a more interesting story across and have offered links to support my claims. You are the one in this thread suffering from blanket denial, you claim every case is evidence for ET, when that is far from the case. You refuse to review and discuss any material that threatens your personal view. It amazes me what a hypocritical stance you choose to take at times.

I did guess that this particular thread would have this effect and that it would be deeply confronting for some on this forum. Alas that is the nature of truth; it is what it is.

Another hypocritical statement, when do you plan to confront the event that I proposed that illustrates that mass hallucination not only happens, but has been documented? And what about all the cases I posted just a page or so back where people have been incarcerated under eyewitness testimony and hypnosis, only to be conclusively proven innocent years later after a good stint it jail? Is that eyewitness testimony and hypno-therapy at work is it? Whilst the results are not wholly surprising, the tenacity to which you hold onto this logical fallacy is.

Any truth that threatens your fantasy is immediately ignored. That is quite a statement you have made there Zoser, and I think it is a reflection as opposed to an observation. I do believe that you find it deeply confronting that these cases have alternate explanations, I think you do not like to consider that they even might have a mundane explanation.

All I would suggest is putting one's entrenched positions to one side, and trying to look at what things are, rather that what one would like them to be.

This thread always was about personal testimony; and like so many others, Hasting's testimony isn't really something one can argue with. He provides evidence for his testimony and has gained nothing for coming forward.

It has been blinkered. You only look at one side of testimony. The people who have spent years behind bars wrongly convicted as a result of personal testimony would in no way agree with you.

What the heck has Hastings got to do with any of this?

So the burden of argument rests with the skeptics should one wish to take that position.

Like all the links I have offered to support my position that you repeatedly avoid? How can I be blamed for your fear of losing a debate?

I have a back log of very convincing testimonies to post but was advised by psyche to slow down and I did just that. I will post the next case tomorrow; some incredible cases to come!

Lets hope they are more incredible than the bulk of the presentation to date. We still struggle to discuss a case properly with the extended time frames, although Quillius and I are having a decent crack at Pascagoula for you.

[psyche101]

Hey, psyche,... your PM is not working.

Not sure mate, I'll have a clean out.

[psyche101]

They are captured but not usually at close range. The two classic cases of mega low flying craft were the Hudson Valley (mid 80's) and Phoenix incidents (mid 90's). Neither were photographed at close range. It remains to be seen if they made a reappearance would they be captured with a phone cam that everyone (except me) carries around today? Even so it begs the question regarding picture quality.

Phoenix was interpreted to be something it was not. It is explained, some just have trouble coming to terms with the explanation, the Hudson Valley had a group of pilots deliberately trying to hoax people in the air and you have never taken that fact into consideration, you just ignore that it exists. It remains to be seen is anything tantalising can be extracted from these claims. You will never resolve a case as long as you refuse to accept that explanations other than ET exist for these events. But I do feel that might well be the agenda of this thread. I think you are promoting the "quantity = validity" concept that the BFRO survives on.

[psyche101]

I can see why you say that. All I can say from living experience is that people individually do not tend to be that reliable when it comes to repeating detail. I know myself when I have been asked to do such a thing how difficult it is.

This is what you are inputting, multiplying that does not resolve.

However en-mass I find the opposite to be true. That when pieces of information come to light from many unrelated people that;s when a story begins to emerge.

Why then do you fear discussing the Fatima event?

In mathematical terms, the error averages out and a picture emerges. Large sample sizes always give a clearer idea. Sorry for the Math language.

Not at all, what is this math talk? You talk about averaging rubbish stories to get a clear result. That is anything but math Zoser. Rubbish in = Rubbish Out.

[badeskov]

Let the record show that we presented evidence and Badeskov presented blather.

If you feel that I am blathering and stepping on your apparently fragile ego, please feel free to report me to the mods. I am sure they need a good laugh. But let the record show, to use your words, you have not presented evidence regarding my opinion on it being a reflection and why it should not be so.

And frankly, your antics are becoming childish in their need to conjure up ET where none is to be found. But lets look at it a bit methodical, something you would have carefully explained to me should you actually yourself believe the nonsense you seem to to sprout.

The image I commented on (which was all I commented on). From your own post:

<snip>

Hastings walked to the back of the plane, grabbed his camera and returned to the cockpit where he snapped two pictures out the window. All he was able to see in the camera viewfinder was the left wing of the plane and the ground below.

It was only after they returned to San Francisco and got the pictures developed that they knew they'd encountered something extraordinary.

"One picture showed what we expected to see -- the aircraft wing and the ground," said Hastings. "But in the second one, there was this [cigar-shaped] thing. We were both convinced that it was not a manmade object.

<snip>

So he did not see anything, he just snapped a couple of pictures and it was only when he was on the ground when the film was developed he saw something on the film. This fits perfectly with a reflection, as I suggested.

And please note, I did not say anything about the whole encounter, but as usual your mind augmented it to fit your belief. I could certainly go on about this case and why I do not find it convincing at all, but frankly, I find it rather a waste of time. And yes, I have looked at it before.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

If you feel that I am blathering and stepping on your apparently fragile ego, please feel free to report me to the mods. I am sure they need a good laugh. But let the record show, to use your words, you have not presented evidence regarding my opinion on it being a reflection and why it should not be so.

And frankly, your antics are becoming childish in their need to conjure up ET where none is to be found. But lets look at it a bit methodical, something you would have carefully explained to me should you actually yourself believe the nonsense you seem to to sprout.

So he did not see anything, he just snapped a couple of pictures and it was only when he was on the ground when the film was developed he saw something on the film. This fits perfectly with a reflection, as I suggested.

It's like he cant drive car; can't order lunch; got no program; don't have hunch; got no brains; got no membry; call his friends Tom, Dick and Hembry....

And please note, I did not say anything about the whole encounter, but as usual your mind augmented it to fit your belief. I could certainly go on about this case and why I do not find it convincing at all, but frankly, I find it rather a waste of time. And yes, I have looked at it before.

I never report anything to anyone and prefer just to let you keep right on talking. You can't help it, I know.

Once again, you are not even telling the truth about this UFO event, since they definitely did "see something" that almost hit their plane. It seemed to come out of nowhere and moved at very high speeds, which seemed to upset them. Who can blame them? Of course you didn't say anything about the whole encounter because that would contradict the silly statement you made about it being a "reflection"--which was based on nothing at all but copying what some of the others said.

Not only do I doubt that you even heard of this case before, but that you even bothered to look at the video or read anything David Hastings ever said. If you did, you certainly have no memory of it.

I don't expect you to ever be impressed by any UFO case regardless of the witnesses or evidence, but you could at least try to report them in an accurate manner once in a while. Do that just once will you, for me? I really wish you'd try to leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling at least once in a while. LOL

'

Edited September 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[badeskov]

I never report anything to anyone and prefer just to let you keep right on talking. You can't help it, I know.

You are right, when I see extrapolations that are not founded in reality, I will comment.

Once again, you are not even telling the truth about this UFO event, since they definitely did "see something" that almost hit their plane.

Now you are extrapolating again. As I clearly pointed out in my post, I did not comment on the case in general, only the image. I even quoted from your own post. What my thoughts are on this case I will gladly discuss, but lets stay focused on one thing at a time as you seem unable to differentiate between various parts.

It seemed to come out of nowhere and moved at very high speeds, which seemed to upset them. Who can blame them? Of course you didn't say anything about the whole encounter because that would contradict the silly statement you made about it being a "reflection"--which was based on nothing at all but copying what some of the others said.

Not only do I doubt that you even heard of this case before, but that you even bothered to look at the video or read anything David Hastings ever said. If you did, you certainly have no memory of it.

I don't expect you to ever be impressed by any UFO case regardless of the witnesses or evidence, but you could at least try to report them in an accurate manner once in a while. Do that just once will you, for me?

Again, as I pointed out, I only commented on the image. Was that so hard to understand?

I really wish you'd try to leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling at least once in a while. LOL

Only one person can do that and that is you. And maybe if you started relating events as they are and not augmenting it would give you that warm, fuzzy feeling

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

Again, as I pointed out, I only commented on the image. Was that so hard to understand?

Nothing you have ever said on here is hard for me to understand. I already noted that you just looked at the picture, fired off a one-line comment that echoed the other 'skeptics' and that was it. Nothing you said is really worth mentioning beyond that because it's has nothing to do with the case at all and is just a bunch of filler and wasted space.

That is all.

Edited September 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[Space Commander Travis]

What about the fact none of these mega craft are ever captured on camera? Is that not also a bit strange? That saying about the broad side of a barn comes to mind.

Exactly, see. if they were experimental aircraft that had been flying around for decades, surely someone would've got a reasonable photo of one. Who knows (completely speculating again), there may be something about (say) the propulsion system of "genuine" extraterrestrial craft (if there is such a thing) that acts as a kind of visual camouflage, and sort of deflects light in some way, who can say?

[Hazzard]

If that is so, I wonder why sometimes they choose to show themselves to people and other times (lets say when someone has a camera) they are cloaked.

Makes little to no sense, if you ask me. Sounds more like the perfect "get out of jail free card" again.

[Space Commander Travis]

If that is so, I wonder why sometimes they choose to show themselves to people and other times (lets say when someone has a camera) they are cloaked.

Makes little to no sense, if you ask me. Sounds more like the perfect "get out of jail free card" again.

very good question. What if it's, again, a by-product of the means of propulsion? It's commonly reported that a UFO might be visible to one person, but not to someone else nearby. Maybe it sort of bends light in such a way that they can only be seen if, say, you're right underneath them. It doesn't seem any more implausible than that aircraft have been flying around, over populated areas or buzzing aircraft, for decades but no one's ever got a picture of them.

[Hazzard]

very good question. What if it's, again, a by-product of the means of propulsion? It's commonly reported that a UFO might be visible to one person, but not to someone else nearby. Maybe it sort of bends light in such a way that they can only be seen if, say, you're right underneath them. It doesn't seem any more implausible than that aircraft have been flying around, over populated areas or buzzing aircraft, for decades but no one's ever got a picture of them.

Or, could it be that what is unidentifiable to someone at a specific angle/distance is something mundane to others looking at it from another angle, so they never think anything of it.

[Space Commander Travis]

Or, could it be that what is unidentifiable to someone at a specific angle/distance is something mundane to others looking at it from another angle, so they never think anything of it.

.. or that people think that something looked at from a particular angle is something mundane, so they never think anything of it. First rule of camouflage, after all.

[Hazzard]

.. or that people think that something looked at from a particular angle is something mundane, so they never think anything of it. First rule of camouflage, after all.

Good one. A helicopter to one observer, atmospheric plasma to another, something strange and unidentifiable to Mrs.Stickville, and invisible to my grandmother. Maybe.

Still, whats up with all these reports of crafts that is anything but mundane? Big cigars and giant discs. Another mind game perhaps?

[quillius]

After some searching, I found this list. http://shipbuildingh...ive/ingalls.htm

My ship, a Spruance Class Destroyer was built in the new section (West Bank) of the shipyard.

Thanks, I do have that link, although interesting to know the ship you were part of.

I will continue this over at the pascagoula thread in a while, be good for you to join the discussion as I am sure you can add some value.

Did you come across the old Schaupeter shipyard whilst there? this is approx one mile North of Ingalls shipyard, also approx 150 yards south of the highway?

[badeskov]

Nothing you have ever said on here is hard for me to understand. I already noted that you just looked at the picture, fired off a one-line comment that echoed the other 'skeptics' and that was it. Nothing you said is really worth mentioning beyond that because it's has nothing to do with the case at all and is just a bunch of filler and wasted space.

That is all.

So now I am not allowed to offer my opinion on an image due to a question asked by another member here? I see...

Cheers,

Badeskov

[zoser]

Lets hope they are more incredible than the bulk of the presentation to date. We still struggle to discuss a case properly with the extended time frames, although Quillius and I are having a decent crack at Pascagoula for you.

At least you are looking into it seriously which I appreciate.

[zoser]

Phoenix was interpreted to be something it was not. It is explained, some just have trouble coming to terms with the explanation, the Hudson Valley had a group of pilots deliberately trying to hoax people in the air and you have never taken that fact into consideration, you just ignore that it exists. It remains to be seen is anything tantalising can be extracted from these claims. You will never resolve a case as long as you refuse to accept that explanations other than ET exist for these events. But I do feel that might well be the agenda of this thread. I think you are promoting the "quantity = validity" concept that the BFRO survives on.

I really can't listen to all of the incredible Hudson Valley and Phoenix testimonies and dismiss them so easily. I just don't understand how you could do it either? I presume you watched the clips and listened to those good folk?

Edited September 11, 2012 by zoser

[zoser]

If that is so, I wonder why sometimes they choose to show themselves to people and other times (lets say when someone has a camera) they are cloaked.

Makes little to no sense, if you ask me. Sounds more like the perfect "get out of jail free card" again.

One other question I have is how many of these craft are flying in our local air space too fast for us to see? There have been several examples where people have snapped a shot and caught a craft not seen with the naked eye.

Here's one from Lancashire, England in 2008 when a man was taking a picture of a mini-tornado.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/1398734/Dad-says-a-tornado-may-have-scared-off-a-UFO-about-to-land-in-Lancashire.html

[TheMacGuffin]

So now I am not allowed to offer my opinion on an image due to a question asked by another member here? I see...

I can hardly stop you, although I always have my own opinions about your opinions.