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 -
Inversion5

The Phenomena is Confirmed

350 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Area201
On 12/6/2017 at 10:58 PM, stereologist said:

The problem is that people want others to watch a 15 minute, 30 minute, even 2 or 3 hour show which has information that could be read in 1 minute or less.

I hardly ever watch videos because the people that present them are unwilling to tell me why I should waste a lot of time watching a video. If you can't tell people where to look in a video and why it is relevant then chances are it is not relevant.

There's a couple separate but related streams of thought going on here. This is a thread about Tom Delogne's recent disclosure. So, member ChrLzs talked about nothing has been shown by Delogne, all bull**** hype, etc. And I replied to him earlier in this thread that an ufologist by the name of Grant Cameron has been following these type of "disclosures" for a long time and has a very unique explanation for, (at least one I have not heard). The video was a short update to that info, he has already published a book on the general idea of managing these players in the field of ufology by the deep state, but this particular 15 minute video focused on Tom Delogne, relevant to the thread.

I understand we are at ELI5, TL;DR and AutoTLDR (to prevent clicks or reading any articles) times now, I agree it is very helpful to get an idea of a subject before going all in to get full view for someone's efforts. Anyway, in that regard, here is the "TL;DR" read of Cameron's general perspective on his book Managing Magic. My quick summary I gave you before was "70 years late, watered-down and heavily managed with a spin, is taking place." I'm not going to to TL;DR for you any more than that, it is sufficient. This isn't particularly about proving ufos or ETs are real, but what's going on behind the scenes of the Delogne (and similar) disclosures. Yeah I'm a "sucker" and bought Cameron's book Managing Magic. I like the subject and into compensating people for their honest and insightful research they put time into. 

"Many think the government is about to disclose what it knows about UFOs. Many think the government is doing everything in its power to keep the UFO reality a secret. The truth is those who control the UFO secret are doing neither. The secret keepers are gradually disclosing this information, via an acclimatization process, based on advice given by military think tanks that have looked at the issue. Through the extraordinary accounts in this book, the reader will: -Learn how long the disclosure effort has been going on and how this secrecy plan has been carried out. -Get a revelation of the 14 magicians in charge of this secrecy. - Find out who the 5 Messiahs are, the ones chosen to carry out the disclosure message. - Learn the 64 reasons that led United States presidents to keep the UFO information secret. - Discover what WikiLeaks has revealed about UFOs. - Learn of the latest disclosure effort by rocker Tom DeLonge." 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 12/7/2017 at 0:29 AM, ChrLzs said:

BTW, for those who love this sorta stuff, here's a link:

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/implants-and-aliens-and-scalpels-oh-my.html

A 'Steve Colbern' even turns up in the comments, and .. well... he got very shy when asked to provide support for *any* of his claims - he even latched onto the 'hollow moon' stupidity, which was debunked here and elsewhere long ago...

 

Anyway, have fun with it!   This stuff is solely for entertainment.

That was kinda fun thanks! I never attend(ed) any of those ufo conventions, so this kind of walked us through some of the vendors. 

"The flying rods" lol that was funny. I remember watching that on TV and saying "are these guys serious?". I don't subscribe to the "hallow moon theory" either (nice debunk effort there btw), or have looked into any of the other theories by Colbern or implant analysis. So back to matter at hand. I mentioned "Patient Seventeen" and that case in particular. Even if all his other implants were fake and he believed in Bigfoot, the matter at hand is that this patient had something in him that was pulled out and in corresponded with some type of ET visitations he experienced. The results of that test is what I'm concerned with, not hallow moon theory, flying rods or other cases. 

So the question is, was the "destructive" ICP analysis valid and can it be duplicated by another lab, etc?  Your friend here Stereo is showing me links to alternative techniques, but why is technique bad other than it being destructive? I'm following the story and will update if I get new info. Don't derail the topic with talk of of hallow moon or other cases in regards the the implant. It's already derailed enough from the Delogne disclosure assessment and whatever "evidence" he provides. In fact, is there another thread we have here that we can carry that over to (the implant thing)? It's really not on point with this thread and evidence by Delogne etc. 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
powerplant
On 11/30/2017 at 10:05 AM, Hammerclaw said:

The guy's a bull**** artist and he's been conning people for years--that's his shtick. 

I've never got the impression that DeLonge is a bull**** artist. To me, a "bull**** artist" deceives people on purpose, usually for monetary gain. 

I think that DeLonge is just hopelessly naive. He means well, he just sucks at critical thinking. I think a lot of "paranormal enthusiasts" are the same way: they want to believe so badly that it clouds their thinking. They view evidence through a biased lens. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/9/2017 at 0:46 AM, Area201 said:

Focusing on the technique and not on the results or completely dismissing results because you don't like them or prefer another "non destructive" technique is side-stepping the results presented. My issue with these results is that I want to see multiple labs and results published/or recorded etc. to compare and analyze, not one, your issue here is the destructive techniques. Something does smell bad indeed.

I'm following this story to see if the director can supply thus. I'm going to go onto your links to attacking the Colbern guy now. See what's going on there.

The problem is that Colbern is an untrustable source. I showed how his hollow Moon claims are nonsense. A big clue is when he begins to refuse to the evidence and methods he used. Once he begins to do that we see that he relies on a made up number for his work. He outright admits he is making up the numbers. Once he finds a flaw he needs to backtrack tot he made up numbers and wonder why they failed to work out. Instead, he blazes ahead on his work and makes up fiction to support his completely made up numbers.

The ICP usage is a part of the issue. it does not allow for further testing. Furthermore, the test does not provide evidence of a nonterrestrial origin. That is what Colbern claims. There is an appeal to authority that his work is solid. It is clearly bad. See if you can find anyone using ICP to determine if a material has a possible extraterrestrial origin. See if the materials  he claims hint at an extraterrestrial origin are used in any other manner than determining classifications for the material once it has been determined to be extraterrestrial in origin.

If you are interested you need to look up why extraterrestrial materials are different than terrestrial materials. What you will learn is that the materials of the Earth went through a differentiation when the Earth was completely molten. Elements that bind well with iron have been largely transported to the core. Much of the material we find today is largely from post crustal formation bombardment. Elements such as osmium and gold found in the crust came from space after the crust formed. The crust prevented the new material from binding to iron and being transported to the core. Look for articles such as the following describing the process that leads to a difference between terrestrial and extraterrestrial materials.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo658

You'll find that Colbern is not doing valid or proper tests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/9/2017 at 1:13 AM, Area201 said:

There's a couple separate but related streams of thought going on here. This is a thread about Tom Delogne's recent disclosure. So, member ChrLzs talked about nothing has been shown by Delogne, all bull**** hype, etc. And I replied to him earlier in this thread that an ufologist by the name of Grant Cameron has been following these type of "disclosures" for a long time and has a very unique explanation for, (at least one I have not heard). The video was a short update to that info, he has already published a book on the general idea of managing these players in the field of ufology by the deep state, but this particular 15 minute video focused on Tom Delogne, relevant to the thread.

I understand we are at ELI5, TL;DR and AutoTLDR (to prevent clicks or reading any articles) times now, I agree it is very helpful to get an idea of a subject before going all in to get full view for someone's efforts. Anyway, in that regard, here is the "TL;DR" read of Cameron's general perspective on his book Managing Magic. My quick summary I gave you before was "70 years late, watered-down and heavily managed with a spin, is taking place." I'm not going to to TL;DR for you any more than that, it is sufficient. This isn't particularly about proving ufos or ETs are real, but what's going on behind the scenes of the Delogne (and similar) disclosures. Yeah I'm a "sucker" and bought Cameron's book Managing Magic. I like the subject and into compensating people for their honest and insightful research they put time into. 

"Many think the government is about to disclose what it knows about UFOs. Many think the government is doing everything in its power to keep the UFO reality a secret. The truth is those who control the UFO secret are doing neither. The secret keepers are gradually disclosing this information, via an acclimatization process, based on advice given by military think tanks that have looked at the issue. Through the extraordinary accounts in this book, the reader will: -Learn how long the disclosure effort has been going on and how this secrecy plan has been carried out. -Get a revelation of the 14 magicians in charge of this secrecy. - Find out who the 5 Messiahs are, the ones chosen to carry out the disclosure message. - Learn the 64 reasons that led United States presidents to keep the UFO information secret. - Discover what WikiLeaks has revealed about UFOs. - Learn of the latest disclosure effort by rocker Tom DeLonge." 

The many that think disclosure is imminent have been on the edge of their seats for decades.

Just because some yahoos think that the government is hiding something is not evidence of anything other than paranoia.

DeLonge has not disclosed anything. It's no different than any other viral marketing campaign thee days - lots of hype and nothing of interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/9/2017 at 1:52 AM, Area201 said:

That was kinda fun thanks! I never attend(ed) any of those ufo conventions, so this kind of walked us through some of the vendors. 

"The flying rods" lol that was funny. I remember watching that on TV and saying "are these guys serious?". I don't subscribe to the "hallow moon theory" either (nice debunk effort there btw), or have looked into any of the other theories by Colbern or implant analysis. So back to matter at hand. I mentioned "Patient Seventeen" and that case in particular. Even if all his other implants were fake and he believed in Bigfoot, the matter at hand is that this patient had something in him that was pulled out and in corresponded with some type of ET visitations he experienced. The results of that test is what I'm concerned with, not hallow moon theory, flying rods or other cases. 

So the question is, was the "destructive" ICP analysis valid and can it be duplicated by another lab, etc?  Your friend here Stereo is showing me links to alternative techniques, but why is technique bad other than it being destructive? I'm following the story and will update if I get new info. Don't derail the topic with talk of of hallow moon or other cases in regards the the implant. It's already derailed enough from the Delogne disclosure assessment and whatever "evidence" he provides. In fact, is there another thread we have here that we can carry that over to (the implant thing)? It's really not on point with this thread and evidence by Delogne etc. 

How are you going to duplicate a method that destroyed the object in question? Not happening.

It doesn't matter if the results are duplicated. Where does anyone use ICP to test for extraterrestrial material? Colbern conclusions from the ICP are incorrect. The elements he points to are not indicators of being extraterrestrial as I already pointed out. Read how they determine other material to be off planet. Nowhere does this test show that the materials are from off the planet or have any structure to them. he only one saying it is possibly from off planet is a kook also known for promoting rods, hollow Moon, etc. How can you trust anything he says? Well don't. Go and learn if ICP has ever been used to test for being off planet. Go and find out tests are actually being used. Go and find out what tests will determine structure to an object.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Here is a simpler test for the claims of an implant: the surgeon claims it gives off RF. Who ever duplicated that simple test? Anyone? That's a nondestructive test. It is passive. It is a detection mode. There isn't even a need to use an excitation energy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 12/10/2017 at 1:03 PM, stereologist said:

The many that think disclosure is imminent have been on the edge of their seats for decades.

Not Grant Cameron. 

On 12/10/2017 at 1:03 PM, stereologist said:

Just because some yahoos think that the government is hiding something is not evidence of anything other than paranoia.

Kind of. Guys like Cameron or Greer, they had their own face to face encounters with the UFO phenomenon and don't need to rely on anything government has locked up secretly, even if that was true or not.

On 12/10/2017 at 1:03 PM, stereologist said:

DeLonge has not disclosed anything. It's no different than any other viral marketing campaign thee days - lots of hype and nothing of interest.

The team of high ranking officials stepping down all at once (obviously planned operation) is unique I have not heard such a thing in the past. They had some fake project bluebook or what not, using public sightings to help target real ufo phenomenon. Anyway, you can say it's nothing, but there was video and tracking of at least one ufo released, that of  U.S. Navy 2004.

The problem we face is just look at this pathetically low quality sh*tty video released. Just pathetic. Are we supposed to believe trillion dollar US Navy cameras record in lowest possible quality and they can't provide the real footage? So as we can see, it's more of a "half-assed disclosure" or closer to a "quarter-assed disclosure" which Cameron details. I think his argument makes sense. It's neither "evidence" or "not disclosed anything". It's something in between and to play the public in a very condescending and managed way.

Capture1.JPG

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

So... that was the 10 December Disclosure???  Golly gosh, it was at least twice as good as I expected....       :wacko:

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

Not Grant Cameron.

Yes, Grant Cameron.  and Steven Greer.  and Jaime Maussan.  and Jose Escamilla.  and a whole pile of other fraudsters very well-known to us.  See how easy it is to make claims?  Thing is, I can back up the fraudulent nature of their claims -just by pointing at old threads.  Maybe you should try the search function? 

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

Guys like Cameron or Greer, they had their own face to face encounters with the UFO phenomenon

No, they didn't.  They make this garbage up and try to make money out of it.  Just ask anyone who's gone to a Greer contact-with-aliens night - did anything other than satellites, aircraft and the odd meteor appear?  Of course not.  BTW, what did you think of Greer's 'Woodland Moth' debacle?  Oh how we laughed...

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

and don't need to rely on anything government has locked up secretly, even if that was true or not.

So you concede you can't prove *any* secrets are being hidden on this topic.  We've heard this for decades.  Your newness to the topic isn't our problem....

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

The team of high ranking officials stepping down all at once (obviously planned operation) is unique I have not heard such a thing in the past.

What team are you talking about?  Cite please.

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

They had some fake project bluebook or what not, using public sightings to help target real ufo phenomenon. Anyway, you can say it's nothing, but there was video and tracking of at least one ufo released, that of  U.S. Navy 2004.

What, the Entire US Navy had only one UFO in 2004?  Don't be ridiculous, many minor sightings would count as UFO's - don't you know what the letters stand for?  If there is one that was IDENTIFIED as non terrestrial, could you point THAT one out?  Thanks.

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

The problem we face is just look at this pathetically low quality sh*tty video released. Just pathetic. Are we supposed to believe trillion dollar US Navy cameras record in lowest possible quality and they can't provide the real footage? So as we can see, it's more of a "half-assed disclosure" or closer to a "quarter-assed disclosure" which Cameron details. I think his argument makes sense. It's neither "evidence" or "not disclosed anything"...

So whose side are you on, again?  :D   It's you who is saying it is nothing... 

 

This thread is a trainwreck.  But don't get me wrong, I think it's great that it exists and I will be promoting it widely, as its existence is a lesson to others who will probably think twice before laughing hysterically at delonge's scamming.

As for it being a distraction from something else... I just shake my head - why does a scammer need (or deserve) excuses?

 

 

And finally, WHEN will you be posting that video from the "top 5%"?  Make it the very best, would you mind?  Then we'll talk about your level of expertise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
51 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Don't be ridiculous, many minor sightings would count as UFO's - don't you know what the letters stand for?

I'm sorry but this is a major pet peeve of mine.  People like you don't seem to know what the Acronym (not simply the letters) stand for! 

In AFR 200-2  a UFO (UFOB) is defined as...

"Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Air_Force_Regulation_200-2,_Unidentified_Flying_Objects_Reporting

 

Stop trying to mislead people, and get your history straight.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
42 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm sorry but this is a major pet peeve of mine.  People like you

"People like me", eh?   What do you mean by that, LS - is your anger at me showing?  I do understand why, though...  :D:D

Quote

don't seem to know what the Acronym (not simply the letters) stand for!

Actually, I think I will disagree with this, even though you have used very convincing exclamation marks.

First up, the letters do stand for UNidentified Flying Object - we'll come back to that important first word shortly.

Second up, there's this thing called common usage.  You should look that up and also consider how many folks here at this forum are under the auspices of the AFR, or frankly, give a sh!+...
My usage was in line with common usage.

But forget those two issues - let's look at what you posted anyway, and poke a huge gaping hole in it...  Did you actually READ what you posted?  Is your first language English?  If it is you will recognise that the THIRD "OR", which I've capitalised and bolded, is in fact a sentence division?...Note the use of two 'which' words - see how they clarify this and tell you where the sentence breaks?  Now read your quote again, taking particular note of the bolded bits:
 

Quote

 

In AFR 200-2  a UFO (UFOB) is defined as...
"Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, OR which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."

 

Let me repost that in simple, broken up form:

UFOB relates to any airborne object:

- which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type,

OR

- which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

In other words, it can be an UNidentified airborne object which has crazy-ass alien-izh perfromance, OR it can be an airborne object which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

Here let me post that last bit again (not rubbing it in, oh no,not me):

OR it can be an airborne object which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object

So, it can be one OR the other - got it?   Feel free, LS, to find someone with a degree in proper English to dispute that, but it's pretty dam basic English grammar.

So, LS, stop trying to mislead people, and get your reading comprehension straight.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inversion5
3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

...This thread is a trainwreck....

How dare you. ;)

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As for it being a distraction from something else... I just shake my head - why does a scammer need (or deserve) excuses?

Because this is a conspiracy website and, at least for me, I always liked Tom (except him in Blink-182, I never liked their music - sry Tom) and it is hard for my nervous system's wiring to let go easily. Tom is two days overdue and at first I felt insulted, then excuses started to flood-in:

1. Tom could of died as no more posts are coming in from his social media pages,

2. the website he is disclosing on is having a lot of issues (maybe hacking) or normal admin issues,

3. Mr. Elizondo bailed,

4. it is no longer a good time to release as the current political atmosphere will adversely affect the release,

5. this is all a lie to raise money to help ET phone home,

6. this is just a scam to hurt ufology,

7. this is a simple scam for money (again, my brain is telling me this is impossible because of the simplicity of the scam and they can not possibly insult my intelligence and others like that - it's f#@king 2017 - the AI/information age),

8. it's all to flush out foreign spies/moles (as China stole all of our nuclear secrets),

9. it's to flush out rouge individuals in the government,

10. it's to test reactions to the release (mainly to observe adverse reactions to then have a proper reaction - take your time Tom),

11. it's to portray that the US has superior technology (even though we don't),

12. Tom has became upset as he realized he has been played,

13. Tom is extremely nervous to release because he is doubting it is not as amazing as he is precieving it to be (even though it may or may not be),

14. "They" gave him a "spaceship" to shut his program down,

15. He has been threatened,

16. Trump interfered,

. . . {insert possibilities/excuses here} . . .

As a famous magician once said (David Blaine), "to figure out the secrets of magic, you must try all possibilities."

Edited by dirtierdragoon4
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

5,6,7.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

I think it has more to do with chemtrails personally.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inversion5
28 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

I think it has more to do with chemtrails personally.

I think you made a mistake and posted on the wrong thread. :lol: We are constructing our thought experiment on another nonexistent subject - UAPs/UFOs. Stay on topic Timmy... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
23 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

I think you made a mistake and posted on the wrong thread. :lol: We are constructing our thought experiment on another nonexistent subject - UAPs/UFOs. Stay on topic Timmy... :D

No mistake. My point made exactly; chemtrails are about as real and relevant as this thread. And all of the excuses and lack of real evidence. 

I don’t mind if you call me Timmy :lol: 

Edit: You can call me ‘Timbi, Timbo, Tim or Boomy’ too. 

Edited by Timonthy
Edit.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inversion5
12 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

No mistake. My point made exactly; chemtrails are about as real and relevant as this thread. And all of the excuses and lack of real evidence.

I know that was your point, that is why I made it for you. :D Everything starts out with a lack of evidence and then excuses if they don't work out - seems to align with the methods of science to some degree, to weed things out.

Edited by dirtierdragoon4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

In AFR 200-2  a UFO (UFOB) is defined as...

"Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Air_Force_Regulation_200-2,_Unidentified_Flying_Objects_Reporting

Stop trying to mislead people, and get your history straight.

To not mention the full definitions, as described in the link provided by you, is misleading:

Quote

- Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, Grant Cameron.  and Steven Greer.  and Jaime Maussan.  and Jose Escamilla.  and a whole pile of other fraudsters very well-known to us.  See how easy it is to make claims?  Thing is, I can back up the fraudulent nature of their claims -just by pointing at old threads.  Maybe you should try the search function? 

Nah I rather make you do more work. I'm supposed to succinctly summarize YT videos into TL;DW form and present neatly but you can't even show links to your old threads? 

 

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, what did you think of Greer's 'Woodland Moth' debacle

yeah I'm aware of this and that some "attendees" would come on trips for sole purpose to discredit the work. I've never see this promoted on their site/materials. I've seen a whole set of other not so funny material though.

 

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So you concede you can't prove *any* secrets are being hidden on this topic.  We've heard this for decades.  Your newness to the topic isn't our problem....

Your ability to dodge and sidestep challenging answers to your position is truly remarkable. 

 

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

What team are you talking about?  Cite please.

SMH

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

What, the Entire US Navy had only one UFO in 2004?  Don't be ridiculous, many minor sightings would count as UFO's - don't you know what the letters stand for?  If there is one that was IDENTIFIED as non terrestrial, could you point THAT one out?  Thanks

I'm talking the one that Delogne and his to the stars or whatever it's called showed and up for discussion. It's recorded by military plane and supported with witness accounts, showing characteristics not known to be terrestrial in known physics dynamics. It's a "UFO" of a more interesting nature than any random thing people cite as "UFOs" because it being recorded by military high tech cameras, etc, not some loony with his mobile phone etc., The fact they show ****ty quality version is another side to the story. You don't seem to comprehend the proposed assessment and go on about defining the word UFO like some Grammando. Distracting and useless grammandos, they'll look at the least relevant aspect to focus on.

 

"So whose side are you on, again?  :D   It's you who is saying it is nothing... "

I didn't even know who Tom Delogne was until I heard his name mentioned about some disclosure. If you at all could follow what Cameron is saying and I've laid out here, we are very critical of this so called "disclosure". Strangely enough I am more here to be highly critical of it or at least assess it for what it is, than to be supportive of it.

 

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And finally, WHEN will you be posting that video from the "top 5%"?  Make it the very best, would you mind?  Then we'll talk about your level of expertise.

I like to keep you waiting like Delogne does to his followers. :lol: Any day now. 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

"People like me", eh?   What do you mean by that, LS - is your anger at me showing?  I do understand why, though...  :D:D

Had you not partially quoted me here, I'm sure you know exactly what I meant. However, you're not always very intellectually honest now are you? Had I partially quoted you, you would have made a major deal out of it and likely complained to the Mods as has happened before right ChrLzs? But to answer your question I don't have anger towards you I just find that you tend to act more or less as Bully quite often which does in fact put me off and also when I've attempted to be freindly and cordial with you, you almost never reciprocate which I also find quite off putting.

 

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Actually, I think I will disagree with this, even though you have used very convincing exclamation marks.

First up, the letters do stand for UNidentified Flying Object - we'll come back to that important first word shortly.

Ok. Fine. You seem to think Bold emphasis is much more persuasive so I'll adopt your technique here in this post. 

Yes, of course the LETTERS in the ACRONYM UFO do in fact stand for Unidentified Flying Object.  However, you will note that UFO is an ACRONYM not simply a phrase, and therefore the ACRONYM actually has a slightly different meaning than simply using the words as a phrase. More on this later.

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Second up, there's this thing called common usage.  You should look that up and also consider how many folks here at this forum are under the auspices of the AFR, or frankly, give a sh!+...
My usage was in line with common usage.

 

While it may be common usage that does not make the common usage correct. One example off the top of my head would be the common usage where most people refer to other Star Systems as Solar Systems. Of course other Star Systems are NOT Solar Systems as there is only one Solar System in the Universe and that is where we reside in the System of our Star named "Sol". So just because there is a thing such as common usage and just because a majority of people may not know what they are talking about does not make that common usage or appeal to ignorance correct even if it happens to serve your (ChrLzs') intellectually dishonest arguments concerning the UFO phenomena. 

The reason ChrLzs is constantly intent on using this "common usage" definition as opposed to what the actual ACRONYM has always meant since it's very first usage by the Air Force, is simply because it allows him to much more easily make his intellectually dishonest dismissal of the actual UFO Phenomena.

While I'm discussing this I'd also like to address another Pet Peeve of mine that also involves "common usage". That being that the common usage of the ACRONYM UFO means ALIEN SPACECRAFT. This again is a perfect example where what most people would call common usage and again this is completely WRONG. That was simply one of several hypotheses to explain the Phenomena early on but also so dramatic in and of itself considering the nature of the Phenomena that it quickly gained much support in the early Air Force investigations. This hypothesis was eventually rejected in large part although it can not be completely ruled out even today the UFO Phenomena still exists despite the fact that we have found zero credible evidence of Alien life but because the common usage of UFO = Alien Spacecraft certain intellectually dishonest actors tend to use this fact to dismiss the UFO Phenomena which is of course a fallacious argument.

In the spirit of full disclosure on my part (the actual definition not the common usage of the word in UFO circles ChrLzs) I have had a close encounter with a small UFO where the sighting lasted around 17 minutes and the UFO eventually ended up hovering near me within around less than 60 feet for over 5 minutes. I don't know what it was, it was the size of a large beach Ball it was whiteish blue glowing brightly with cones of multicolored airglow dancing around it. Basically like what many WWII pilots reported as Foo Fighters. However, you do not need to have seen a UFO Phenomena personally to know that ChrLzs "common usage" argument is totally bunk if you spend the time to research the modern History of the UFO Phenomena beginning around WWII (even though the Phenomena's history dates back much further). 

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

But forget those two issues - let's look at what you posted anyway, and poke a huge gaping hole in it...  Did you actually READ what you posted?  Is your first language English?  If it is you will recognise that the THIRD "OR", which I've capitalised and bolded, is in fact a sentence division?...Note the use of two 'which' words - see how they clarify this and tell you where the sentence breaks?  Now read your quote again, taking particular note of the bolded bits:
 

Quote

 

In AFR 200-2  a UFO (UFOB) is defined as...
"Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, OR which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."

 

Let me repost that in simple, broken up form:

UFOB relates to any airborne object:

- which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type,

OR

- which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

In other words, it can be an UNidentified airborne object which has crazy-ass alien-izh perfromance, OR it can be an airborne object which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

You don't realize how extremely predictable you actually are. You are not very familiar with the actual early history of the Phenomena because its quite obvious you completely discount it altogether with 100% confidence. 

The version of the Air Force directive I quoted (1954), I quoted specifically because it included that last part which you so predictably latched onto as if somehow I can't read English? 

Wow! No wonder you think I have "ANGER" towards you! I think that you actually make an effort to foster ANGER towards yourself when you are confronted by people whom you are afraid can best you in a debate. This of course is another intellectually dishonest tactic that to be fair can work very well for people who are sly at employing the tactic.

Back to the history now. The earlier versions of this directive did not include that last bit. For example AFL 200-5 dated April 29th 1952 gives the UFO definition as "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type.”

Now for people who just don't know much of the early history, this was the official definition of the ACRONYM UFO after the Air Force had been investigating the Phenomena for 5 years beginning in 1947 (even though the investigations actually began around 1943)! Please note the glaring fact that this Air Force definition of the ACRONYM UFO is not in anyway ChrLzs' common usage definition. 

Project Blue Book began in March of 1952, this AFL 200-5 less than one month later was the official definition used by the Air Force for Blue Book and subsequent UFO reports Blue book required of Military personnel and also for civilian and overseas reports. As time went on AFR 200-2 (1953) was written with the same definition, and then revised again in 1954 where we get the addition "or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." The original caveat here however was explicitly meant "cannot be positively identified as a familiar object (by those investigators qualified to make such a determination)". By 1954 that caveat was simply understood by the Air Force, none of these documents had ever been made public and would not be until many years later. The reason for the inclusion of that last phrase was because Project Blue Book had realized early on that many Military personnel were highly reluctant to file reports and PBB wanted more reports to be filed and the original definition was fairly strict and technological advances were being made so rapidly at the time it was realized that a majority of Military personnel would not know what could preform beyond our capabilities, which was what actually defines the ACRONYM UFO! Adding this phrase thus allowed more Military personnel and Civilian Pilots to feel more comfortable filing FLYOBRPTS (Flying Object Reports) to PBB. 

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

In other words, it can be an UNidentified airborne object which has crazy-ass alien-izh perfromance, OR it can be an airborne object which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

Here let me post that last bit again (not rubbing it in, oh no,not me):

OR it can be an airborne object which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object

So, it can be one OR the other - got it?   Feel free, LS, to find someone with a degree in proper English to dispute that, but it's pretty dam basic English grammar.

So, LS, stop trying to mislead people, and get your reading comprehension straight.

 

In other words Charlie you are completely wrong. You have no understanding of the actual history involved. As far as acting like a Classy individual who wishes to discuss this particular UFO Phenomena and it's actual early history and what the ACRONYM UFO actually means as opposed to the willful ignorance of "common usage" I will let our fellow UM readers judge you based on the above.  Feel like kicking a football? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Area201 said:

I'm talking the one that Delogne and his to the stars or whatever it's called showed and up for discussion. It's recorded by military plane and supported with witness accounts, showing characteristics not known to be terrestrial in known physics dynamics. It's a "UFO" of a more interesting nature than any random thing people cite as "UFOs" because it being recorded by military high tech cameras, etc, not some loony with his mobile phone etc., The fact they show ****ty quality version is another side to the story. You don't seem to comprehend the proposed assessment and go on about defining the word UFO like some Grammando. Distracting and useless grammandos, they'll look at the least relevant aspect to focus on.

The video is IR. It will not show the shape of the object, but the shape of what is emitting IR. You want to pretend that there is a different quality version someplace. That is just speculation on your part. So please tell me what about the video shows "characteristics not known to be terrestrial in known physics dynamics."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
56 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The video is IR. It will not show the shape of the object, but the shape of what is emitting IR. You want to pretend that there is a different quality version someplace. That is just speculation on your part. So please tell me what about the video shows "characteristics not known to be terrestrial in known physics dynamics."

Right "a FLIR-hud-vision captured by one of the jets", but there was accompanying image I thought was presented with it. Maybe I'm mistaken. I have heard testimonies of some navy members (on Coast 2 Coast) who saw the raw footage themselves before it was edited/degraded and that is much more convincing. Of course from a skeptical side it's all hearsay/anecdotal evidence etc. But that is why I brought up they might have much better footage taken besides this but that has not been released.

One ATS* member concluded it's a hoax before Delogne came on the scene. "Conclusion : Pending release of the promised further "files", this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the "vision-unlimited" group of German student film makers. -Isaac Koi"The other video of a shaky video of a TR-3B disappearing from sight has been shown to be CGI.

We are left with footage that is somewhat compelling but not convincing for any party (believers or skeptics alike). 

UFO-Navy-876023.jpg

*Note: We have good reason to believe some ATS members are really DOD/military working to manage intel on the forums too, so keep that in mind.

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, Area201 said:

Right "a FLIR-hud-vision captured by one of the jets", but there was accompanying image I thought was presented with it. Maybe I'm mistaken. I have heard testimonies of some navy members (on Coast 2 Coast) who saw the raw footage themselves before it was edited/degraded and that is much more convincing. Of of course from a skeptical side it's all hearsay/anecdotal evidence etc. But that is why I brought up they might have much better footage taken besides this but that has not been released.

One ATS member concluded it's a hoax before Delogne came on the scene. "Conclusion : Pending release of the promised further "files", this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the "vision-unlimited" group of German student film makers. -Isaac Koi"

The other video of a shaky video of a TR-3B disappearing from sight has been shown to be CGI.

We are left with footage that is somewhat compelling but not convincing for any party (believers or skeptics alike). 

 

So the summation is that better footage is speculation. I did notice that presentations online about the footage used stills from other events.

I asked the following which was not addressed.

Quote

So please tell me what about the video shows "characteristics not known to be terrestrial in known physics dynamics."

Now you say that the footage is "somewhat compelling." Why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

So you added some image to your previous post. Notice my previous post because I wrote the following:

Quote

I did notice that presentations online about the footage used stills from other events.

Let me suggest that your images are not from the same event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inversion5
30 minutes ago, Area201 said:

...

UFO-Navy-876023.jpg

....

The one on the left looks like a flir military camera targeting a cow. The one on the right looks like an opened diaper (maybe Depends) on a reflective blue surface. 

Edited by dirtierdragoon4
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.