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 -

Israel - UFO or Missile?


Recommended Posts

This more I think about it the more this phenomena has about it the feeling of scientists trying to brush it under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. The Australian video shows exactly the same effect as seen in Israel and Norway. Yet what are they saying; not a Russian missile this time but a civilian launch from the US! Displaying the exact same characteristics as a Russian ICBM. Really?

Something strange about this one.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people just seem to not be able to process the fact that strange things can have such simple explanations.

ITS A ROCKET :)

I've watched the videos all the way through and I see no spiral effect. Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check them out how? How do you account for the similar sightings over New Zealand, totally remote from anything the Russians are doing! Ufology is a different world completely to the laboratory.

Welcome to the forum. B)

Welcome to the forum?! I find it more suitable to welcome you,... to reality. Jim Oberg was in this game before you even heard of Star Trek. If anyone knows this stuff its him. Just incase you never heard of him I suggest that you use Google to find out. You would be wise to listen to a guy like this. If for nothing else, he can help you to weed out the hoaxes and misinterpretations out there. God knows there are plenty of them in this field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum?! I find it more suitable to welcome you,... to reality. Jim Oberg was in this game before you even heard of Star Trek. If anyone knows this stuff its him. Just incase you never heard of him I suggest that you use Google to find out. You would be wise to listen to a guy like this. If for nothing else, he can help you to weed out the hoaxes and misinterpretations out there. God knows there are plenty of them in this field.

Sorry never heard of him. He's not on my list of famous UFO researchers. Has he made a UFO documentary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check them out how? How do you account for the similar sightings over New Zealand, totally remote from anything the Russians are doing! Ufology is a different world completely to the laboratory. Welcome to the forum. B)

[media=]

[/media]

Pretty sure that one is a hoax. Was discussed here previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another from Australia:

[media=]

[/media]

Did you watch this one all the way through zoser?

Hint: Rocket... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that one is a hoax. Was discussed here previously.

Just checked that thread. Lots of opinion but no real conclusion. What makes you think it's a hoax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked that thread. Lots of opinion but no real conclusion. What makes you think it's a hoax?

After a close look at the photos, which you can get here, I'm convinced that they are nothing more than a reflection in a window from a light shining on the ceiling or wall behind the camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

Welcome to the forum. B)

<snip>

Jim has been around a couple years more than you have. Maybe you should check before posting.

Sorry never heard of him. He's not on my list of famous UFO researchers. Has he made a UFO documentary?

By all means of respect, but the above explains quite a lot about your research abilities and your sources - or, rather, lack of same. First of all, a simple Google search would have told you all you need to know about Jim. Secondly, the question if he ever made a UFO documentary pretty much tells all about where you source your material from, and it is not flattering. In fact, it is quite embarrassing.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pffft failed missile launch my ****

I could think of better places for such a failure to take place, but if you insist you might be able to convince the powers that be to give it a go. Lube first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim has been around a couple years more than you have. Maybe you should check before posting.

By all means of respect, but the above explains quite a lot about your research abilities and your sources - or, rather, lack of same. First of all, a simple Google search would have told you all you need to know about Jim. Secondly, the question if he ever made a UFO documentary pretty much tells all about where you source your material from, and it is not flattering. In fact, it is quite embarrassing.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I'm interested in Ufology Baseskov that's why I'm here. I'm not interested in rocket science, straight and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this exact same thing happened in Norway and they said it was a missle gone wrong, so most likely that is what this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it was a missile gone wrong, there would have been a crash site.

It couldn't have been a hoax because of the widely spread out area of observers.

Possibly a genuine UFO sighting, origin unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt this "failed" launch already explained by Jim?

And zoser,... how you can only look at UFO stuff (that supports your belief in ET visitation) and ignore real science and still talk about having an "open mind" is beyond me. :wacko:

Edited by Hazzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt this "failed" launch already explained by Jim?

And zoser,... how you can only look at UFO stuff (that supports your belief in ET visitation) and ignore real science and still talk about having an "open mind" is beyond me. :wacko:

Because in the light of what people have experienced over the last 60 years in Ufology, the whole question of 'real science' has to be up for re-evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because in the light of what people have experienced over the last 60 years in Ufology, the whole question of 'real science' has to be up for re-evaluation.

Science is always up for re-evaluation. Thats the beauty of it. Peer review and all that.

Ill take the scientific method over your pseudo science and wishful thinking every time. Maybe not as exciting as your ET visitation fantasy, I know, but I think its more rewarding to hear this from the scientific community, than from some snake oil salesman trying to plug his next book or CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is always up for re-evaluation. Thats the beauty of it. Peer review and all that.

Ill take the scientific method over your pseudo science and wishful thinking every time. Maybe not as exciting as your ET visitation fantasy, I know, but I think its more rewarding to hear this from the scientific community, than from some snake oil salesman trying to plug his next book or CD.

One of the problems with science as we know it today is that it sold it's soul to economics years ago. A good example to look at is how J P Morgan refused to invest in Tesla's ideas because it meant that he would not be able to capitalise on it. Also science is turning in ever decreasing circles trying to discover more about what it already knows (e.g spending billions on particle accelerators to no end). I see little evidence that it is making a determined effort to discover new. Surely as a lover of science you should know all this?

Anyway this is off topic again; I'm going back to investigate the Kansas incident.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with science as we know it today is that it sold it's soul to economics years ago. A good example to look at is how J P Morgan refused to invest in Tesla's ideas because it meant that he would not be able to capitalise on it. Also science is turning in ever decreasing circles trying to discover more about what it already knows (e.g spending billions on particle accelerators to no end). I see little evidence that it is making a determined effort to discover new. Surely as a lover of science you should know all this?

[...]

Gosh... Thats sooooo retarded...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with science as we know it today is that it sold it's soul to economics years ago.

With all due respect, but the reason for the lack of quality in your socalled research is becoming rather obvious. Just because you find that some sinister motives behind the funding of research doesn't mean that you yourself should abandon the scientific methodology. But I am guessing that using the scientific methodology eliminates those cases you find so intriguing.

A good example to look at is how J P Morgan refused to invest in Tesla's ideas because it meant that he would not be able to capitalise on it.

No wonder. You of course have to find the right venue for your sources of funds. Nothing sinister in that at all, pretty basic thinking, actually. You wouldn't go to Alaskan Fur Company to get money to ban furs either, would you? If Tesla's idea was really so revolutionary others would have had no issue in funding him.

Also science is turning in ever decreasing circles trying to discover more about what it already knows (e.g spending billions on particle accelerators to no end). I see little evidence that it is making a determined effort to discover new.

Your lack of knowledge of the scientific method, science in general, how it works, why it works like it does and what it actually accomplishes is becoming blatantly obvious. Please explain then why you think the currently knowledge we have gained from particle accelerators is enough. Don't you think it would be good to verify whether the Higgs Boson exists or not? Maybe learn how quantum mechanics can be merged with Einstein's General theory of Relativity to yield a theory of quantum gravity? Please also explain how you think science should operate.

Frankly, it is said particle accelerators and the science produced with them that enables you to write such gibberish on your computer. But maybe you should return your computer and go back to pencil and paper. It seems like you want to reap the benefits of science while still renouncing it because it also removes your dreams of ET.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, but the reason for the lack of quality in your socalled research is becoming rather obvious. Just because you find that some sinister motives behind the funding of research doesn't mean that you yourself should abandon the scientific methodology. But I am guessing that using the scientific methodology eliminates those cases you find so intriguing.

No wonder. You of course have to find the right venue for your sources of funds. Nothing sinister in that at all, pretty basic thinking, actually. You wouldn't go to Alaskan Fur Company to get money to ban furs either, would you? If Tesla's idea was really so revolutionary others would have had no issue in funding him.

Your lack of knowledge of the scientific method, science in general, how it works, why it works like it does and what it actually accomplishes is becoming blatantly obvious. Please explain then why you think the currently knowledge we have gained from particle accelerators is enough. Don't you think it would be good to verify whether the Higgs Boson exists or not? Maybe learn how quantum mechanics can be merged with Einstein's General theory of Relativity to yield a theory of quantum gravity? Please also explain how you think science should operate.

Frankly, it is said particle accelerators and the science produced with them that enables you to write such gibberish on your computer. But maybe you should return your computer and go back to pencil and paper. It seems like you want to reap the benefits of science while still renouncing it because it also removes your dreams of ET.

Cheers,

Badeskov

OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Particle accelerators have been one of the most important tools in the most amazing scientific revolution of all time - quantum physics.

Quantum physics allows us to understand nature at a fundamental level, to explain chemistry on an atomic level, and thus to fundamentally understand the building blocks of nature and life itself.

Quantum physics is responsible for allowing us to have marvellous medical tools like MRI scans and PET scans.

If nuclear fusion ever gets off the ground as a viable source of energy, it will be because of our understand of nuclear physics that comes from particle accelerators.

But it's easier to remain ignorant of all this and b**** about scientists and their multibillion dollar useless toys and institutions.

The likes of NASA and CERN are to be cherished and promoted, but they are the regular subjects of abuse and tirades from those who don't understand them or like what they have to say.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with science as we know it today is that it sold it's soul to economics years ago. A good example to look at is how J P Morgan refused to invest in Tesla's ideas because it meant that he would not be able to capitalise on it. Also science is turning in ever decreasing circles trying to discover more about what it already knows (e.g spending billions on particle accelerators to no end). I see little evidence that it is making a determined effort to discover new. Surely as a lover of science you should know all this?

500full.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.