outoftheworld Posted December 31, 2013 #1 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that. If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base? I mean it just does not make sense! And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera Edited December 31, 2013 by outoftheworld 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacenut56 Posted December 31, 2013 #2 Share Posted December 31, 2013 so he didn't take a picture of it. Still the evidence remains, and there was quite a bit actually. Casts were made of the landing spot, Colonel Halt had a running conversation on tape while the incidents happened. Cows at a nearby farm went berserk when the ufo was in the air and then landed, and a diary of the incident and drawing of the ufo was made by Mr. Penniston, and so on. You cannot dismiss this case simply because there is no photograph. The kicker for me was the American Commander of the base, when presented with the facts regarding this incident would give no response what so ever. Why??. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #3 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw[/media] The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that. If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base? I mean it just does not make sense! And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera The cameras were confiscated. The cover up was intense and the witnesses apparently given the truth serum sodium pentothal. http://books.google....iscated&f=false The same thing at the Kecksburg UFO crash site. A reporter and news director for the local radio station WHJB, John Murphy, arrived on the scene of the event before authorities had arrived, in response to several calls to the station from alarmed citizens. He took several photographs and conducted interviews with witnesses. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle later reported that all but one roll of the film were confiscated by military personnel. WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza described one of the pictures: "It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don't know how far away from the site he was. But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing. It's the only time I ever saw it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident Edited December 31, 2013 by zoser 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #4 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that. If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base? I mean it just does not make sense! And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera There were three eye witness get your facts straight before you try to debunk a UFO sighting. Yes he touched it, and was able to activate the object. He was also able too write the glyphs he saw down on paper and he had no camera with him. Ever thought of that genius. The glaring flaw in your logic is mute point in not getting your facts straight before you debunk a UFO report. Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #5 Share Posted December 31, 2013 The kicker for me was the fact the Commander was seen at the sight if he thought nothing of it he wouldn't have come too the sight. I saw this on Paranormal witness and this case intrigued me 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted December 31, 2013 #6 Share Posted December 31, 2013 The cameras were confiscated. The cover up was intense and the witnesses apparently given the truth serum sodium pentothal. http://books.google....iscated&f=false The same thing at the Kecksburg UFO crash site. A reporter and news director for the local radio station WHJB, John Murphy, arrived on the scene of the event before authorities had arrived, in response to several calls to the station from alarmed citizens. He took several photographs and conducted interviews with witnesses. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle later reported that all but one roll of the film were confiscated by military personnel. WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza described one of the pictures: "It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don't know how far away from the site he was. But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing. It's the only time I ever saw it." http://en.wikipedia....rg_UFO_incident Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted December 31, 2013 #7 Share Posted December 31, 2013 There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera There was no way 20 years ago if you had a camera but no film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A rather obscure Bassoon Posted December 31, 2013 #8 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135 Quote: Forestry Commission worker Vince Thurkettle, who lived less than a mile away, was also present at the examination of the landing site. Astronomer Ian Ridpath, who has a fantastic web site about the event (and check out this YouTube video of his original BBC report here), interviewed Thurkettle about the impressions and the reported burn marks on the surrounding trees: He recognized them as rabbit diggings, several months old and covered with a layer of fallen pine needles... The "burn marks" on the trees were axe cuts in the bark, made by the foresters themselves as a sign that the trees were ready to be felled. So much for the landing site. Edited December 31, 2013 by shaddow134 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerix Posted December 31, 2013 #9 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits. Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #10 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess. Saying, I don't like facts is ridiculous let alone your emotional argument about the statements. So your comments is mute point at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted December 31, 2013 #11 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I've had too much to drink with friends and we never ended up as a group of witnesses to a UFO. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #12 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this?? Nothing and yet everything. Why would the command be that desperate to administer it to the witnesses? What were they determined to hide? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 31, 2013 #13 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this?? Sodium Pentothal is a plot device used in fiction in which it has the magical power of forcing people to tell the exact truth with absolute certainty or in this fiction erase a witness's memory but not quite. Remember, the cameras were confiscated but the tape recording wasn't. Why didn't they confiscate the tape recorder? Because that would have made a successful cover up instead of a good UFO story and we never would have heard the story. The best UFO stories always have unsuccessful cover ups! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #14 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess. Just like the authorities tried to do. Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here. Gets more ridiculous every time it comes around. Sodium Pentothal is a plot device used in fiction in which it has the magical power of forcing people to tell the exact truth with absolute certainty or in this fiction erase a witness's memory but not quite. Remember, the cameras were confiscated but the tape recording wasn't. Why didn't they confiscate the tape recorder? Because that would have made a successful cover up instead of a good UFO story and we never would have heard the story. The best UFO stories always have unsuccessful cover ups! Tape recorders only reveal what was said. Not what was seen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #15 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135 Quote: Forestry Commission worker Vince Thurkettle, who lived less than a mile away, was also present at the examination of the landing site. Astronomer Ian Ridpath, who has a fantastic web site about the event (and check out this YouTube video of his original BBC report here), interviewed Thurkettle about the impressions and the reported burn marks on the surrounding trees: He recognized them as rabbit diggings, several months old and covered with a layer of fallen pine needles... The "burn marks" on the trees were axe cuts in the bark, made by the foresters themselves as a sign that the trees were ready to be felled. So much for the landing site. Ian Ridpath with the light house hypothesis. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 31, 2013 #16 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here. You mean the accepted explanation? No we won't bother to go through that again. Tape recorders only reveal what was said. Not what was seen. Yeah, that's why President Nixon didn't mind releasing tape recordings during the Watergate cover up -- tape recordings never prove anything. In other words, you might want to learn what a "cover up" is before you start claiming one, Mr Z. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted December 31, 2013 #17 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here. Gets more ridiculous every time it comes around. You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #18 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door? Quite. Also how does it account for Penniston's testimony that he touched the craft and sketched the markings on it? Edited December 31, 2013 by zoser 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacenut56 Posted December 31, 2013 #19 Share Posted December 31, 2013 As I posted earlier, the top U.S. Commander of the base was asked to comment about this incident, but he declined. I ask again, WHY???? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #20 Share Posted December 31, 2013 You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door? That was a riddcluos argument yeah like the officers don't know that a light house is, near by lmao 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2013 #21 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) That was a riddcluos argument yeah like the officers don't know that a light house is, near by lmao It's a tactic that skeptics (not UM skeptics of course) use; they propose the most incredibly banal explanations and try and make out that even the most astute observer could easily be fooled. Venus, the Moon, swamp gas..........it's just a tactic; nothing that any serious researcher would take seriously. Edited December 31, 2013 by zoser 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #22 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I am sure that even, I couldn't be fooled by a light house that I knew about because that would be my first thought until the animals started acting up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheworld Posted December 31, 2013 Author #23 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Hey to the person who mentioned about me `debunking anything`.. i am not a skeptic i am a believer... But i am just dis-enchanted with the fact that, for all the hear say and reports and testimonies (as reputable as they may be).. there is zero/ zilch in terms of physical evidence zero.. zilch,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacenut56 Posted December 31, 2013 #24 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I guess maybe your explanation of what you consider to be evidence, may be different from mine, as I will speak for myself here and say there was lots of evidence, but as I have pointed out before, you can either choose to accept the evidence presented or not to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted December 31, 2013 #25 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Hey to the person who mentioned about me `debunking anything`.. i am not a skeptic i am a believer... But i am just dis-enchanted with the fact that, for all the hear say and reports and testimonies (as reputable as they may be).. there is zero/ zilch in terms of physical evidence zero.. zilch,,, Your idea of no evidence is ridiculous since their were ton of evidence collected at the scene. Also Skepticism is alright but to deny evidence collected is not skepticism that denying truth and reality. Evidence and truth are my life so please stop it with saying your a believer since your acting more like a pull a theory out of my ass skeptic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now