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 -

Passenger Jet and ufo


Spacenut56

Recommended Posts

Oh god, he's posted that video before? A normal person would have looked into it and seen the aircraft was not a Mig 21 (I saw it right away. The video was taken from a rear navigator seat. The Mig 21 only has one seat. That alone should have set off alarm bells).

I can't wait until the next time he tries using it to "prove his point" lol.

Give it time and you'll see zoser bring up the same old tired crap over and over. he's been banging on about PumaPunku for last 4 years, same tales, same images, eventually his threads get closed..In his mind he justifies the reposts for the 'new' readers, you see hes thinking hes doing them a favour by revealing the old ufo stories. Perhaps not realising most people into ufology have seen all these old clips before :lol:

Moreover, he cannot believe the debunks, ufo stories are his life, so by presenting debunks this greatly upsets his intelligence. (!) Inasmuch as when debunks are pointed out he squirms in his seat for the fool hes been made to look. So to try and wriggle out of it he will swerve and insist others prove stuff, and how often does he say 'over to you', or 'this is the challenge'

If only the world was being visited by ufo/ET, if only all the stories were true, Id think it was fantastic, tho after many years looking into countless UFO tales - I cannot reach that conclusion, but zoser on the other hand, hasnt looked for answers, he is just taken up with each mind blowing :lol: clip he watches, it never occurs to him people fake stuff. 99% of the time in ufology...

.

Edited by seeder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What proof have you shown exactly?

Have I missed something?

Here is the list again.

http://www.ufoeviden...p?section=Cigar

Try taking any one of them and see if you can find a prozaic explanation.

Or take the Jenkins County Missouri incident of 1978.

Fast Forward to 7:27

[...]

Part 2 is at the beginning of this clip.

[...]

The incident was well witnessed.

There is your cigar shaped UFO. The smaller object left trace evidence.

http://www.ufocasebo...010/mo1978.html

If family members would have been questioned right after "event" by professional interrogators, who know what and how to ask, there would have been more holes in that story than in Swiss cheese stuffed in five barges...

I wonder, what all UFO nuts would be blabbering about in case of Morristown event with all witnesses:

A family in Hanover Township reported seeing the lights from their home. 11 year old Kristin Hurley was the first to notice the lights. Paul Hurley, a pilot, saw the lights and said they were not planes. The Hurley Family took video of the lights, which appeared on Fox News.[12] Hurley stated, "I have been in the aviation industry for 20 years and have never seen anything like this, a little scary, little scary."

A Morristown resident said that he saw an L-shaped formation oscillating in the sky. Bender was interviewed by the Morris County newspaper Daily Record.[5] Bender stated that, what he saw, "didn't seem manmade." and "No way this could have been weather balloons."

Hanover Township's health officer said that he saw the lights while walking his dog in Madison at 8:38 pm. In contrast to local police reports, Van Orden stated the lights did not appear to be flares because they didn't leave trails. He also said that they sometimes appeared to move against the wind, "These things were moving fast, holding formation, and then moving in three different directions. I don't know what it was."[5]

Holy cow! Pilot described event as "scary". And what about "moving fast", "didn't seem manmade", huh? Here goes "credibility" myth down the drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Give it time and you'll see zoser bring up the same old tired crap over and over. [...]

Thats for sure. 100%.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, he cannot believe the debunks

Ya I kind of figured he is the type of closed minded person to try to brush off any rational explanation in favor of of his little green men theory when he showed that the pilot described the object as the shape of a rugby ball, with a metallic color, and I posted an airship that was the shape of a rugby ball, with a metallic color, and he "wasn't convinced" lol.

It's almost as if he lives in a whole other reality from the rest of us. It's scary in a way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well theres a surprise, you found the report

Why do I get the impression you were relying on me not finding it, and thereby maintaining some claim that there was a prozaic explanation somewhere in there?

You will note nothing was seen on ground radar, or the planes own inbuilt collision radar, now balloons are full of gas and therefore not substance, so are unlikely to get a radar return.

As is often the case in UFO cases (if you know the history of Ufology that is).

It was determined the object would have to have been 1m, to 1.5m in size. Bit small to have aliens in it then isnt it? But about the right size for a large balloon :tu:

That was never seen by witnesses. Neither is it the main basis for the explanation in the report. :tu:

They 'say' this rules out toy balloons - but I say, very confidently, this is not the case, it just depends whats meant by 'toy' balloons, you can get any size/color balloon you like on ebay. heck we have school-kids sending balloons to the edge of space to take photos, now, wonder what kind of balloons they need for that?

Bit of fudging here mixed in with a dollop of speculation.

The reflection idea 'they' proposed is also a good one. So all we have is a guys story, a SINGLE WITNESS, who isnt/wasnt sure of what he saw. he doesn't know what he saw in fact.

The report mentioned reflection. So was it a balloon or a reflection? You seem confused and unsure.

even the report ends by saying "the overall dearth of information relating to the event rendered a meaningful finding impossible"

As is the case in UFO reports. If you know the history of Ufology that is.

So to sum up, we have a single witness story, nothing on radar, an object up to 1.5m in size, or a possible reflection. no other reports from other aircraft that day, nothing seen on radar, an official report which states nothing can be determined...

And this thread has reached 5 pages? man it shouldn't have reached 5 posts, but typical of zoser th keep flogging dead horses.

Nothing can be determined from the story, so totally pointless arguing about it, isnt it?

The point is that if the pilot saw something he could not identify, there is zero justification for claiming it was a balloon. Nothing in the report indicates that.

More assumption, false claims.

Exposed and debunked.

:tu:

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya I kind of figured he is the type of closed minded person to try to brush off any rational explanation in favor of of his little green men theory when he showed that the pilot described the object as the shape of a rugby ball, with a metallic color, and I posted an airship that was the shape of a rugby ball, with a metallic color, and he "wasn't convinced" lol.

It's almost as if he lives in a whole other reality from the rest of us. It's scary in a way.

You've been debunked Mr A.

You claimed a few pages ago that the case was easily debunked.

You have no evidence. The conclusions of the report do not back up your claim. The report rules out weather balloons and toy balloons. The mystery blimp was unfortunately not seen or witnessed.

The report's best guess is reflection however they admit that is pure speculation.

Unless you have more proof and evidence.

Consider yourself debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats for sure. 100%.

No need.

The claims of the skeptics have been debunked.

Unless you have something knew to offer?

Once again people make claims they can never substantiate. I've seen this time and time again on UM. There is nothing in that report that proves there is a prozaic explanation for this case.

Cheers.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it time and you'll see zoser bring up the same old tired crap over and over. he's been banging on about PumaPunku for last 4 years, same tales, same images, eventually his threads get closed..In his mind he .........................

.

For the record your last dozen or so posts on that topic were decidedly off topic, and irrelevant. You showed total lack of understanding of the topic, insisting on posting irrelevant images of other ancient sites that contained absolutely no granite or andesite.

You then proceed to fill those threads with cycnical images and insults in order to try and get the thread closed down. Those are your tactics.

You have been exposed here too by insinuating that there was some obvious explanation contained in the investigation report.

There was not.

:td:

I'm "not convinced" ;)

Proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You showed total lack of understanding of the topic, insisting on posting irrelevant images of other ancient sites that contained absolutely no granite or andesite.

Yet you post a video that has been debunked in the past, and we're supposed to take you seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report rules out weather balloons and toy balloons.

NO IT DOES NOT. STOP TWISTING THE FACTS!

The report simply ruled out toy balloons due their size, IT STATES quite clearly, the balloon would need to be in the size range of 1 to 1.5 meters

Not much bigger than the balloon below

580045_490849840926571_2035812080_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the whole not showing up on radar doesn't really mean it has to be aliens either. B-2 and F117 flights and sightings prior to their declassification rendered the same sorts of results.

Who knows what the government is testing up there in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Im off to do some twerking, this convo is boring, arguing about something the co pilot 'thought' he saw out the corner of his eye but cannot be sure of course

Could have been a rubbish sack blowing around, they come in shades of grey that when inflated by the wind would be about the one meter size, as indicated, IN FACT IT COULD BE 1000 OTHER THINGS instead

bagsofrubbish.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO IT DOES NOT. STOP TWISTING THE FACTS!

The report simply ruled out toy balloons due their size, IT STATES quite clearly, the balloon would need to be in the size range of 1 to 1.5 meters

Not much bigger than the balloon below

There you go again. Running out of ideas so here come the cynical images.

Seen it all before seeder. Where is the monkey image? Where is the yawning man image? Will you post them next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the whole not showing up on radar doesn't really mean it has to be aliens either. B-2 and F117 flights and sightings prior to their declassification rendered the same sorts of results.

Who knows what the government is testing up there in this day and age.

Did it ever occur to you:

1) If it was a blimp the pilot would have said as much? They are after all used to seeing such things.

2) What would such an object be doing close to Heathrow?

Not likely imho.

Type in to google the words oval shaped UFO.

See how many similar unexplained cases there are. You may be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does everyone see what zosers all about here. This story is so weak, the few facts are,

The man 'thought' he saw something, but not directly... outta the corner of his eye. So its questionable if he even did see something, or just thought he saw something, he could even have daydreamed for a moment and woke with a jolt, thats not uncommon for pilots (to nod off).

No-one else saw it. No passengers looking out the window got alarmed or reported anything either. When Im flying, I always take a window seat with my camera handy, and I look out the window pretty much the entire flight hoping to see stuff. Many other passengers no doubt do the same.

Nothing tracked on any radar. No other aircraft reported anything similar

A report states its inconclusive, BUT IF IT WAS A BALLOON, it would be 1 to 1.5 meters in size. A size close enough to be something totally terrestrial like balloons or garbage.

And THATS IT! There are no other facts.

But zoser has hallucinated the scene in his minds eye and made the whole story bigger than the few actual facts there are.

Its totally bonkers to be discussing such a weak, indirectly observed report. There is in fact NOTHING worthwhile to be discussed.

But you see zoser will keep up his baiting of others for replies, for proof, for debunks, but there is nothing to debunk, as it isnt even certain what he saw. So how can anyone be discussing something some guy saw out the corner of his eye, for just a millisecond, flying in the air where any number of any other things are also floating about?

But zoser isnt here for the facts, for him he wants to have a conversation by enticing others with little experience of his tactics, and thus, in HIS mind, he has some way to pass his time here.

But the story is a non runner, not enough info or even certainty on the co-pilots part

Why anyone would choose to keep up this thread is beyond me. its not even interesting. But yeh its a slow newsday on the ufo section I guess, but my sense of personal dignity means Im out of such a lame thread. No matter the bait zoser feels compelled to drop

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Type in to google the words oval shaped UFO.

Yup, and what comes back are a bunch of man made, terrestrial objects people saw but could not identify because they did not have the proper training or knowledge to identify what they were seeing.

Edited by Amerix
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

The claims of the skeptics have been debunked.

[...]

Thats only in your head.

[...]

Unless you have something knew to offer?

[...]

New? Not new, but I'll bring afterimage (what pilot was doing before he "saw object"?), once again, and Emmert's law. In split second (event didn't lasted long, otherwise first officer (copilot) would have seen it too), changing focus of the eyes, could've created "motion" illusion: first glance at the edge of the panel - "smaller" object, eyes "jump" to "track" object focusing into distance - "bigger" object, then ducking to alert copilot while afterimage vanishes - voilá - you have your sighting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just keep watching the x in the centre, just do it!! Till all the dots vanish. Eyes can easy play tricks

mainimage.gif

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm sayin is the government create

these fake videos because they know the people will dismiss it as being fake

The government have better things to do than fake ufo videos,where is the evidence that they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] where is the evidence that they do?

Well, you just invited zoser to post more YT crap... Damn you... <_<
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the complaints; that's usual from the skeptics around here.

What I object to is blanket claims about cases being debunked or explained without due evidence,

So carry on complaining

At least someone has pointed out to you that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

:tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I object to is blanket claims about cases being debunked or explained without due evidence,

:clap: yeh and we have a lot of evidence here dont we? :no: Some guy 'maybe' saw something out the corner of his eye. Thats it. Thats hardly evidence of anything, is it? But do keep up defending a non starter of a ufo story, Im sure others are lining up to make a mockery out of you :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the complaints; that's usual from the skeptics around here.

What I object to is blanket claims about cases being debunked or explained without due evidence,

So carry on complaining

At least someone has pointed out to you that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

:tu:

Sorry, but you didn't addressed issue of small balloons that can overinflate without bursting and can fly at 30000+ feet, nor did you addressed possible visual limitations of witnesses.

BTW, do pilots perceive Moon on the horizon to be of the same size as in zenith? Simple question. And your simple answer (of one word) is?... (Yes, or No)

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.