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 -

Sts-48


Shouldthisexist

Recommended Posts

ok, that still doesn't change anything in my previous statement.

But, anyone who wanna join the chorus needs to know the lyrics at least. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My god man... where do you want me to start? We've discussed this here hundreds of times over the last 9 years I've been a member!

Maybe instead of implying that I don't know what I'm talking about you could just do some searching here on the forum?

You could disagree with me and a whole host of others if you did you part to search and understand what we have said over the last decade and that would be fine, but just putting me down cause you are ill informed is completely off putting!

I want you to start by saying that plasma can form itself into 60' long 30' wide or however large you want to make KA's objects, and that they can fly in formation for a couple hundred miles while maintaining those shapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want you to start by saying that plasma can form itself into 60' long 30' wide or however large you want to make KA's objects, and that they can fly in formation for a couple hundred miles while maintaining those shapes.

You can see from Hessdalen phenomena that these plasmas can form geometric shapes, are long lived, and have been recorded traveling at very high speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see from Hessdalen phenomena that these plasmas can form geometric shapes, are long lived, and have been recorded traveling at very high speeds.

Plasmas can form shapes, sure, but nine, exactly alike, flying wings in formation? Not likely. Not impossible, of course, but not likely at all. Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see from Hessdalen phenomena that these plasmas can form geometric shapes, are long lived, and have been recorded traveling at very high speeds.

I know I shouldn't draw myself into this, but are you saying high strangeness plasma formations are natural phenomena, or are they to do with ET? Also, when you say "strangeness" are you referring to the quantum property? If so, how does that fit in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmas can form shapes, sure, but nine, exactly alike, flying wings in formation? Not likely. Not impossible, of course, but not likely at all.

It's a bit dodgy being that Kenneth revised his initial statements however he did later state that only one object was crescent shaped.

Arnold described them as a series of objects with convex shapes, though he later revealed that one object differed by being crescent-shaped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit dodgy being that Kenneth revised his initial statements however he did later state that only one object was crescent shaped.

http://en.wikipedia....ld_UFO_sighting

OK thanks. Honestly, the more I read about this event the less faith I have in Mr. Arnold. It seems he changed his story more than a politician lying about the young lady leaving his room in the morning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK thanks. Honestly, the more I read about this event the less faith I have in Mr. Arnold. It seems he changed his story more than a politician lying about the young lady leaving his room in the morning.

Honestly even he did see something this man does one of the best jobs I've ever seen at destroying his own credibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK thanks. Honestly, the more I read about this event the less faith I have in Mr. Arnold. It seems he changed his story more than a politician lying about the young lady leaving his room in the morning.

He seems to have changed his story more often than high strangeness atmospheric plasma can change its shape.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I shouldn't draw myself into this, but are you saying high strangeness plasma formations are natural phenomena, or are they to do with ET? Also, when you say "strangeness" are you referring to the quantum property? If so, how does that fit in?

No. Nothing to do with E.T.. And by high strangness that means the plasmas have exotic behaviours, and coherent shapes, and do not act like conventional plasmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to have changed his story more often than high strangeness atmospheric plasma can change its shape.

Yes indeed :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to have changed his story more often than high strangeness atmospheric plasma can change its shape.

How do you guys imagine that? Its been scrutinized for 68 years and in that time no-one has ever suggested he made up his sighting as you Merc and a couple others are trying to suggest here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you guys imagine that? Its been scrutinized for 68 years and in that time no-one has ever suggested he made up his sighting as you Merc and a couple others are trying to suggest here.

What has been scrutinized, his ever changing testimony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has been scrutinized, his ever changing testimony?

Arnold's sighting has been scrutinized for just under 70 years. Unless you few have uncovered something new about it, then you just seem unbearably pedantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you guys imagine that? Its been scrutinized for 68 years and in that time no-one has ever suggested he made up his sighting as you Merc and a couple others are trying to suggest here.

Did Merc and others (who?) suggest that - I'd like to see the quotes.

But perhaps more importantly - do you eliminate possibilities simply on the basis of how old the sighting is? When did people start making up stories?

This seems a rather strange thing to say, first that you can guarantee no-one ever suggested he just made it up, and second that such a possibility should not be considered or even suggested (if it was..).

That seems very closed minded of you - to not be open to all possibilities, including a simple falsehood.

And very, very credulous to simply believe everything people say. Especially when the person in question is shown to have changed their story - do you just pick the version you like?

Great research approach, that one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Merc and others (who?) suggest that - I'd like to see the quotes.

Go ahead and re-read this latter part of the thread. Some here have argued he couldn't see the shapes as he said. I believe you took that position?

If even that one argument was correct (I say its not) that would certainly imply Arnold invented his story.

But perhaps more importantly - do you eliminate possibilities simply on the basis of how old the sighting is? When did people start making up stories?

Of course I don't, my point is that his sighting has been researched over and over for decades! Its always been known that Arnold did see something, in that everyone whose researched what he said has concluded that as being true.

Decades ago the moniker "Pelicanist" was widely used because even Arnold's skeptics have agreed he was being honest in describing his sighting.

This seems a rather strange thing to say, first that you can guarantee no-one ever suggested he just made it up, and second that such a possibility should not be considered or even suggested (if it was..).

No. Im saying if it it was viable convincing and held water, we wouldn't be talking about his sighting and several of you could show some research that conclusively shows that. Which if it existed I would have almos certainly found such years ago!

That seems very closed minded of you - to not be open to all possibilities, including a simple falsehood.

You are incorrect. It would be "close minded" if I didn't follow the mounting datum like some posting here making jokes about Hessdalen Phenomena (atmospheric plasmas)!

And very, very credulous to simply believe everything people say. Especially when the person in question is shown to have changed their story - do you just pick the version you like?

Great research approach, that one...

ChrLzs, do you enjoy being hypocritical that much? I think I've written about 5000 posts here on UM and you wont find me saying anything like you are suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead and re-read this latter part of the thread. Some here have argued he couldn't see the shapes as he said. I believe you took that position?

How did he see the shape of the circular feature that is depicted on the crescent-shaped craft (sorry, plasma)? If the crescent-shape was at the limit of the resolving power of his eye, how did he see something that is ten times as small?

In fact, there are features on the circle itself. How could he possibly see those features? If a bit of "artistic licence" has been used on the drawing, is that not the same as "made up"?

http://mccluresmagaz...-arnold-ufo.jpg

Edited by Derek Willis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did he see the shape of the circular feature that is depicted on the crescent-shaped craft (sorry, plasma)? If the crescent-shape was at the limit of the resolving power of his eye, how did he see something that is ten times as small?

In fact, there are features on the circle itself. How could he possibly see those features? If a bit of "artistic licence" has been used on the drawing, is that not the same as "made up"?

http://mccluresmagaz...-arnold-ufo.jpg

Seriously, Arnold did not draw that drawing you keep going on about. I.e. he did not see those details and he never claimed to have seen them!

He always thought he was seeing some type of jet aircraft and some artist drew that loosely based on Arnold's description and he had a picture taken for an article.

Thats it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, Arnold did not draw that drawing you keep going on about. I.e. he did not see those details and he never claimed to have seen them!

He always thought he was seeing some type of jet aircraft and some artist drew that loosely based on Arnold's description and he had a picture taken for an article.

Thats it!

That really is a ridiculous thing to say. Arnold is holding the drawing so he must have endorsed it! You can't explain why he claims to have seen things that he couldn't have possibly seen so you are using a very weak argument to get round that. The caption to the photograph should be: "Here is what I saw. Except, it isn't actually what I saw". Complete nonsense.

And to follow on from what you have written. You wrote that Arnold always claimed he saw some type of jet aircraft. But you - who weren't there at the time - are saying that he actually saw something else!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really is a ridiculous thing to say. Arnold is holding the drawing so he must have endorsed it! You can't explain why he claims to have seen things that he couldn't have possibly seen so you are using a very weak argument to get round that. The caption to the photograph should be: "Here is what I saw. Except, it isn't actually what I saw". Complete nonsense.

And to follow on from what you have written. You wrote that Arnold always claimed he saw some type of jet aircraft. But you - who weren't there at the time - are saying that he actually saw something else!

No. You are deliberately attempting to misunderstand. Arnold did believe in his opinion that he was seeing some type of jet aircraft.

That said, I disagree with his opinion.

He never cclaimed to see a cockpit or any small detail like that other than saying it was visible to him that there were no tails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You are deliberately attempting to misunderstand. Arnold did believe in his opinion that he was seeing some type of jet aircraft.

That said, I disagree with his opinion.

He never cclaimed to see a cockpit or any small detail like that other than saying it was visible to him that there were no tails.

I am not deliberately attempting to misunderstand anything. Arnold is holding up a drawing the shows a small circular feature. Any right minded person would infer that that is what he claimed to have seen, regardless of who made the drawing. He could not have seen the circular feature - and you cannot get round that by claiming I am deliberately attempting to misunderstand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if this has been posted before, has some good detail and in particular has some good points on the image being discussed.

http://www.nicap.org...ysis_shough.pdf

edit to add: page 140 onwards

Edited by quillius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And very, very credulous to simply believe everything people say. Especially when the person in question is shown to have changed their story - do you just pick the version you like?

Hi ChrLzs,

hope you are well!

I know I am late to the party but have been trying to follow the conversation via my phone. Maybe you can help me here and point out the change of story, obviously using first hand testimony/transcribed interview

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if this has been posted before, has some good detail and in particular has some good points on the image being discussed.

http://www.nicap.org...ysis_shough.pdf

edit to add: page 140 onwards

I want to add that I've begun to compile sites that show Arnold's quotes, not what reporters or web site owners say he said. For example, this will be allowed: "I saw the lights cross the ridge," as opposed to this: "Arnold said he saw a 900 foot tall Jesus."

It's in the beginning stages, and I'll start a new thread with them, and hopefully people will add to it. I don't expect it to be mine alone.

I quoted Quillius' link because that Nicap pdf report is one of those I found while searching for quotes last night.

I should add several sites simply reprint what other sites say, which shouldn't be surprising. Like Kusche's work on the Bermuda Triangle, I expect a lot of duplication, and very little first hand quotes. From what I've seen so far, Arnold does seem to change his story slightly, but time will tell as to how much.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.