The best evidence for UFOs

[Fila]

On 09/01/2018 at 10:43 AM, badeskov said:

Evidence that more and more UFOs are atmospheric phenomena that the casual observer cannot recognize. So? Again, so? Again, so?

The Hessdallen lights are still inconclusive to scientists.., can you walk me through how you formed your conclusion?

As for the other links.., I agree they aren't amazing.., but that's all I could find. It really shows that little is being done to look into what is causing the lights and UFOs.

That's why there's so little evidence to work with.., and merely relies on conjecture and character profiling.

On 09/01/2018 at 10:43 AM, badeskov said:

This is simply wrong on so many levels that it is not even funny. Can you point me to a simple skeptic that has stated that UFOs do not exist? Of course UFOs exist - the question is just what any given UFO actually is.

UFOs as in.., cases of unknown objects (including claims of large metallic aircraft, with no wings, fuselage, or means of propulsion,backed by radar data and countless trained observers) that are still unsolved

Its a pretty common thing. I was aware of "sceptics" and "believers" even before getting into UFOs. I've seen it a few times.., but won't mention names. I guess they mean "sceptic" as in "sceptical of UFOs being real".., as opposed to "sceptical of information"?

On 09/01/2018 at 10:43 AM, badeskov said:

Lighthouse.

Unknown, but not very credible given the subsequent explanations by the crew.

Missile launch.

Atmospheric phenomena. Even one of the most staunch proposers of the UFO=ET admitted to that afterwards.

Unknown.

Atmospheric phenomena and the headlights of cars in a distance.

Flares and military aircraft on a training exercise flying in formation.

Thank you so much. Some of those cases are definitely interesting. I disagree about the Phoenix Lights (1997) case, but I'll strike the others from the list until I can counter.

Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980) - links to be provided...

Japan Air 1620 (1987)

Tehran UFO (1976)

Belgian UFO wave (1989)

Kirtland AFB (1957) - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/232293-kirtland-air-force-base-ufo-november-1957/#comment-4425527

Michigan UFO (1966)

Westwall (1966)

Hessdalen UFO wave (1981)

Phoenix Lights (1997) -  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=2

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Fila

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

FWIW I’m still to be convinced that Bentwaters/Rendleahsn Forest was a group of drunk squaddies misidentifying a lighthouse. 

 

.... now drunken squaddies and min-min Lights ...

[Fila]

On 09/01/2018 at 8:44 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

FWIW I’m still to be convinced that Bentwaters/Rendleahsn Forest was a group of drunk squaddies misidentifying a lighthouse. 

.... now drunken squaddies and min-min Lights ...

Its a very interesting case. I might necrothread it. I have drank a lot.., and never hallucinated. Is this a common thing?

I cannot find any evince to support the claim that alcohol makes people hallucinate. And makes multiple people hallucinate the same thing. Then makes new "witnesses" hallucinate the same thing days later.

But I'm open to new information and look forward to discussing this with you.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Fila

[Dejarma]

13 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

WIW I’m still to be convinced that Bentwaters/Rendleahsn Forest was a group of drunk squaddies misidentifying a lighthouse. 

More like:

drunk on duty & didn't notice the activists get in the base who were attempting to hang banners/ graffiti around the silos & between them all created a feeble cover up, not realizing how the 'story' would mushroom.

When this case first hit the scene (around 1985) it was just a sighting.

As the years went on things were added like writing on the craft & later suddenly aliens were seen they forgot to mention at the start= silly forgetful soldiers

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

Its a very interesting case. I might necrothread it. I have drank a lot.., and never hallucinated. Is this a common thing?

Its not that interesting in fact I find it dissolussioning. That people we trust to look after countries are such desperate attention seekers. 

You would be much better of reading Ian Ridpaths website fir the conventional explaintions than the CT world of UFOlogy. 

2 hours ago, Fila said:

I cannot find any evince to support the claim that alcohol makes people hallucinate. And makes multiple people hallucinate the same thing. Then makes new "witnesses" hallucinate the same thing days later.

You don't even need alcohol. The Farina event proves this. 

2 hours ago, Fila said:

But I'm open to new information and look forward to discussing this with you.

The best information regarding that tale is on Ian Ridpath's website. 

[Fila]

On 10/01/2018 at 0:18 PM, psyche101 said:

Its not that interesting in fact I find it dissolussioning. That people we trust to look after countries are such desperate attention seekers. 

I can't rely on character profiling to determine the outcome of a case.

On 10/01/2018 at 0:18 PM, psyche101 said:

You would be much better of reading Ian Ridpaths website fir the conventional explaintions than the CT world of UFOlogy. 

I don't like conclusions that are "most likely" scenarios that don't fit descriptions given by witnesses. An explanation must explain the event. Not rewrite the event to fit the explanation.

On 10/01/2018 at 0:18 PM, psyche101 said:

You don't even need alcohol. The Farina event proves this.  

So you disagree with Sir Wearer of Hats that they were drunk? It was more of a cry for attention.

[psyche101]

48 minutes ago, Fila said:

I can't rely on character profiling to determine the outcome of a case.

Its not its a comment from his direct superior. Colonel Conrad was there too and he went outside to look at the lights Halt was ranting about and there was nothing in the sky according to him and his immediate staff. 

Of the group who went out, two say it was the lighthouse, Halt claims aliens and Penniston says he got a message saying it was future humans. The majority of people at the site disagree with the spaceship claim. As such the registered observations of the British Astronomical Society are without doubt how the incident is explained. 

Quote

I don't like conclusions that are "most likely" scenarios that don't fit descriptions given by witnesses. An explanation must explain the event. Not rewrite the event to fit the explanation.

Are you saying you prefer fantasy driven tales as opposed to conventional claims? 

I'd very much like to see how you can illustrate such with regards to Ian Ridpath's explanation. Have you perused his work? 

Quote

So you disagree with Sir Wearer of Hats that they were drunk? It was more of a cry for attention.

I think it is both a different then some. Drug abuse was also committed  at the base. What I was pointing out is that you do not even need to be drunk fir mass hallucination as the Fatima event illustrates. 

Penniston's Facebook rants scream of cries for attention. He seems a right joke to be honest. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by psyche101

[Fila]

On 10/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

Its not its a comment from his direct superior. Colonel Conrad was there too and he went outside to look at the lights Halt was ranting about and there was nothing in the sky according to him and his immediate staff. 

Oh, ok. Thank you. I cannot find anything saying Conrad was there either night with those that saw it.

If he was standing right next to them as they are looking right at it.., and said he saw nothing, then I would listen. But it sounds like he wasn't.

If Sgt. Bud Steffens, Sgt. Adrian Bustinza, Sgt. Monroe Nevels, Halt, Penniston, Burrows and others said that they saw something. Then one claim from someone saying they didn't (when they were in a different location) only proves that 1 person didn't see something.

This is how the Phoenix Lights incident is being dismissed. Thousands claim they saw X. But 3 claim they saw Z. Must have been Z.....

Its gotta be the laziest way of solving a case ever.  

Constable Psyche101 on the scene of a crime. Lady reports items stolen. Psyche can't see the theif or the stolen items. Asks neighbours "See anything last night?", Not a thing they say.

CONCLUSION: Lady must be on drugs. Psyche101 locks up another druggo. Streets are safe once again. lol. I'm glad no one here is in a position of power.

This one person not seeing something cannot be used to dismiss the others. Its just not how it works. He may have poor night vision. He may have been at a different angle. Perhaps he was on drugs if you can assume half the barracks can be, then that logic works both ways.. There are many reason why he may not have seen what others saw.

On 10/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

Are you saying you prefer fantasy driven tales as opposed to conventional claims? 

I don't pick either side. I'm not an ET nut.., nor a scoffer. I can look at info objectively.

If the explanation does not match the descriptions given.., (i.e. a triangular craft landing, multiple colours, saw landing gears etc) then its just a hastily made assumption that ignores evidence. Anyone could do that.

I'll have a go. Ehm..,

(STEP 1: Say they didn't see what was described.). - All these people saw nothing. Its all a lie, hoax and cry for attention by druggos..

(STEP 2: Now that the witness description is out of the way.., pick any object that is in the sky.., and try to work that in instead of matching description given). - They are covering up being high and tripping out on Venus.., cause Venus is a light, and its in the sky. Or maybe a "fireball" perhaps, or meteorite way off in the distance. They didn't see a craft up close, within the bush amongst trees, because Venus can't do that.

On 10/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

I'd very much like to see how you can illustrate such with regards to Ian Ridpath's explanation. Have you perused his work? 

I had a quick look but seems like the same old BS of ignoring testimonies and descriptions given.., in order to make whatever he thinks work. I'll have another look, but yech. I can't stand obvious bias. I've dealt with people like this my whole life and see straight through it all.

On 10/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

I think it is both a different then some. Drug abuse was also committed  at the base.

So the 1st event they were all on drugs. The 2nd event Halt came and also took drugs? Why wasn't anyone stood down? (Please no more personal opinions. Facts please)

Imagine if you were a judge or police officer. You would be hauling in people all day because you "think he is on drugs". The problem is.., before you can go arresting people.., or calling people druggo's. You need proof.

But not for UFOs right? I cannot stand this type of BS accusations and character profiling, guessing and assumptions to form a conclusion I will offer an unbiased and fair approach to UFOlogy. Something that has never been done before.

On 10/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

What I was pointing out is that you do not even need to be drunk fir mass hallucination as the Fatima event illustrates. 

Penniston's Facebook rants scream of cries for attention. He seems a right joke to be honest. 

Can you back this up? People hallucinating UFOs is a common fallback when cornered. The last resort. But it has no evidence to support it.

Facebook posts.....Yea ok. More convincing evidence  Better lock him up. The bloody druggo attention seeker. We got the proof, nab him! lol

Man see's potentially the coolest thing in the world.., but can't talk about it. Really?.., I'd be telling the whole world too, and I'd be excited. But perhaps you're right. What parts prove he is an attention seeker.., as opposed to however he is meant to behave.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Fila

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Thing is, like Roswell, the story around Rendalsham Forest has evolved over the years. I remember when it was a one night, craft in the distance and then shoom off into the sky story. Now it’s mutliple days, physical contact with a craft, weird radiation recordings etc etc.

the only ones I can’t think of that’ve chsnged over the years of telling is Keksberg, the Battle of LA and the Phoenix Lights. And of those, ALL have perfectly supportable explanations (although I’m still leery about Keksberg). 

[Fila]

On 10/01/2018 at 11:06 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Thing is, like Roswell, the story around Rendalsham Forest has evolved over the years. I remember when it was a one night, craft in the distance and then shoom off into the sky story. Now it’s mutliple days, physical contact with a craft, weird radiation recordings etc etc.

This is a normal thing. So normal there is a term for cold cases. As for the Phoenix Lights incident.., its turning out to be an official UFO. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=3

 

 

[stereologist]

22 minutes ago, Fila said:

This is a normal thing. So normal there is a term for cold cases. As for the Phoenix Lights incident.., its turning out to be an official UFO. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=3

The Phoenix lights have not been a UFO since 1997.

[psyche101]

23 hours ago, Fila said:

Oh, ok. Thank you. I cannot find anything saying Conrad was there either night with those that saw it.

If he was standing right next to them as they are looking right at it.., and said he saw nothing, then I would listen. But it sounds like he wasn't.

He lived on the base. Like Halt and his search party he was having a Christmas party. When Halt made his claims if lights in the sky he his wife and guest stepped outside. Nobody saw a thing to confirm Halts story. He was as close as the people you lost below whom you claim support the spaceship story, none of whom saw more than a light in the sky. 

This is in line with the natural phenomena that was confirmed be the British Astronomical Society. 

Quote

If Sgt. Bud Steffens, Sgt. Adrian Bustinza, Sgt. Monroe Nevels, Halt, Penniston, Burrows and others said that they saw something. Then one claim from someone saying they didn't (when they were in a different location) only proves that 1 person didn't see something.

Many saw natural phenomena that night. Halt interpreted those lights as a spaceship and Penniston claimed it to be a craft from the future. 

We had visitors from space that night they were meteors. 

Quote

This is how the Phoenix Lights incident is being dismissed. Thousands claim they saw X. But 3 claim they saw Z. Must have been Z.....

Nonsense. If thousands really did see a spaceship how is it we have zero footage, not one picture that illustrates more than planes and flares? Everybody have broken cameras? News crews were used  the field trying to confirm the claims nobody could. 

And how did the entire planet miss such a behemoth entering or leaving earth's atmosphere? If we could see it on the ground logic insists we could see it in space. Nobody ever did. 

What we do have is ametuer observations through telescopes, official logs and witnesses from the exercise to confirm conventional explanations yet on the alien claim we have some wild stories 

Many people identified panes flares and stars through what was supposed to be one big craft. Symington lied about his recollection (have you bothered to research the thread where I explain why in detail several times?) but you dismiss conventional explanation for wild claims and it is obvious as to why. 

You seem more like the townspeople who booed Mitch Stanley away from, a town meeting just because he had a conventional explanation. Not something you want to hear is it now. 

Quote

Its gotta be the laziest way of solving a case ever.  

Constable Psyche101 on the scene of a crime. Lady reports items stolen. Psyche can't see the theif or the stolen items. Asks neighbours "See anything last night?", Not a thing they say.

CONCLUSION: Lady must be on drugs. Psyche101 locks up another druggo. Streets are safe once again. lol. I'm glad no one here is in a position of power.

Weren't you combining about others which cannot debate and resort to personal insets? 

Seems you have become that which you claim to loathe? 

Personally I think you owe those people an apology considering your snide useless reply. 

Quote

This one person not seeing something cannot be used to dismiss the others. Its just not how it works. He may have poor night vision. He may have been at a different angle. Perhaps he was on drugs if you can assume half the barracks can be, then that logic works both ways.. There are many reason why he may not have seen what others saw.

What about the two people in the search party who said it was a wd goose chase that led them to a lighthouse? 

Of the people you claim to be telling the truth we still don't know which one you are referring to so again I ask directly 

Was it supposed to be aliens or future humans? 

Quote

I don't pick either side. I'm not an ET nut.., nor a scoffer. I can look at info objectively.

Oh be honest. If you were objective you would be capable of poking holes I Ridpaths excellent and rational explanation instead of dismissing it with a hand wave  it is obvious you want this to be proof of alien visitation and that's all you are interested on discussing or accepting 

Quote

If the explanation does not match the descriptions given.., (i.e. a triangular craft landing, multiple colours, saw landing gears etc) then its just a hastily made assumption that ignores evidence. Anyone could do that.

What about the far wider ranging identifications I'd the British astronomical society? 

What about the people in the search party who said they found a lighthouse? 

The two people who claim otherwise are claiming different things! How is that the larger body of evidence? 

Quote

I'll have a go. Ehm..,

(STEP 1: Say they didn't see what was described.). - All these people saw nothing. Its all a lie, hoax and cry for attention by druggos..

(STEP 2: Now that the witness description is out of the way.., pick any object that is in the sky.., and try to work that in instead of matching description given). - They are covering up being high and tripping out on Venus.., cause Venus is a light, and its in the sky. Or maybe a "fireball" perhaps, or meteorite way off in the distance. They didn't see a craft up close, within the bush amongst trees, because Venus can't do that.

I had a quick look but seems like the same old BS of ignoring testimonies and descriptions given.., in order to make whatever he thinks work. I'll have another look, but yech. I can't stand obvious bias. I've dealt with people like this my whole life and see straight through it all.

Again you ignore records for two conflicting stories 

You are doing exactly what you are trying to project upon others 

Quote

So the 1st event they were all on drugs. The 2nd event Halt came and also took drugs? Why wasn't anyone stood down? (Please no more personal opinions. Facts please)

They were drunk too christmas party remember? 

And all I said was drugs were a problem at the base I didn't say anyone took them just that it would not be unlikely as the means we're there it is a distinct possibility 

Again neither drugs or alcohol are required for mass halucination  but it was not entirely halucination no matter what as I have pointed out repeatedly a meteor shower was in progress and fireballs were recorded 

The wild interpretation is in question and considering the childish nature of Ufology championing two conflicting stories over official records it seems more than dubious to an objective observer. 

Quote

Imagine if you were a judge or police officer. You would be hauling in people all day because you "think he is on drugs". The problem is.., before you can go arresting people.., or calling people druggo's. You need proof.

But not for UFOs right? I cannot stand this type of BS accusations and character profiling, guessing and assumptions to form a conclusion I will offer an unbiased and fair approach to UFOlogy. Something that has never been done before.

Absolute rubbish 

The Hessdalen project is a prime example of what a real investigation into the phenomena looks like. 

Promoting the unsupported tall tales and insulting those who challenge the gigantic holes in the claim is not. 

Quote

Can you back this up? People hallucinating UFOs is a common fallback when cornered. The last resort. But it has no evidence to support it.

For like the third time now the Fatima event is one direct example. 

Considering you have asked this question several times now I take it you are unaware of the event? 

Quote

Facebook posts.....Yea ok. More convincing evidence  Better lock him up. The bloody druggo attention seeker. We got the proof, nab him! lol

I'm talking about Penniston and I suggest you read his childish rants before commenting 

He is obviously an attention seeker

Quote

Man see's potentially the coolest thing in the world.., but can't talk about it. Really?.., I'd be telling the whole world too, and I'd be excited.

Opps better close you legs 

Lol you just exposed your agenda! 

So could you need it to be true. That does not make talk tales true and it belittles the real world efforts to learn what we can about space and other planets. 

I can see all you need is a story to get over excited you are screaming two conflicting stories asous as you can when childishly refusing real world answers 

Its is dead set funny as that you call yourself objective! You are just another UFO nutter. 

Quote

But perhaps you're right. What parts prove he is an attention seeker.., as opposed to however he is meant to behave.

His temper, his changing story and his constant appeals to the media 

Personally I find Penniston just a little more pathetic than Halt. Both ought to be ashamed of themselves. They slipped through the cracks as it is more than obvious  that neither Halt nor Penniston were ever fit for the honor of the duty they were given 

UFO nutters are dime a dozen your no different to any of the others who have tried to push their agenda with this ridiculous claim I would guess it is impatience as all discoveries associated with space are at a slow pace simply due to the vastness of space

A little patience and true objectivity would serve you well if you were to consider it

[psyche101]

16 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Thing is, like Roswell, the story around Rendalsham Forest has evolved over the years. I remember when it was a one night, craft in the distance and then shoom off into the sky story. Now it’s mutliple days, physical contact with a craft, weird radiation recordings etc etc.

LOL Good call! 

Once upon a time some took Roswell quite seriously but it's just a joke these days! 

16 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

the only ones I can’t think of that’ve chsnged over the years of telling is Keksberg, the Battle of LA and the Phoenix Lights. And of those, ALL have perfectly supportable explanations (although I’m still leery about Keksberg). 

Indeed 

With Kecksburg the craft was tiny, half the size of a VW and went on the back of a flatbed

Obviously such a tiny thing is not crossing space with occupants as claimed by some

[Fila]

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

He lived on the base. Like Halt and his search party he was having a Christmas party. When Halt made his claims if lights in the sky he his wife and guest stepped outside. Nobody saw a thing to confirm Halts story. He was as close as the people you lost below whom you claim support the spaceship story, none of whom saw more than a light in the sky. 

This is in line with the natural phenomena that was confirmed be the British Astronomical Society. 

I would take the word of the soldiers on the ground.., who were on active duty that night. As opposed to one older officer who may have been inebriated from the party, and not as alert as those on duty.

It certainly doesn't automatically discredit the others claims. Its merely another claim. Why this gets used as proof positive the other claims are false is beyond comprehension.

If I put a cup into the ocean, and study the water in the cup. I will see no whales. That does not mean whales are non-existent.

The Astronomical society wouldn't be able to confirm an aircraft.., let alone a UFO. They have no authority over objects within our atmosphere.., and were most likely studying Saturn or something that night.., as opposed to having their telescope pointing at lighthouse elevation.., down to the woods.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

And how did the entire planet miss such a behemoth entering or leaving earth's atmosphere? If we could see it on the ground logic insists we could see it in space. Nobody ever did. 

I think we are all guilty of this assumption. One I am clearing up in this thread here.... 
Just briefly though.., a satellite with a camera zoomed out to view all of America.., would not see an individual football field.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314663-why-are-ufo-images-always-so-bad/

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

Many saw natural phenomena that night. Halt interpreted those lights as a spaceship and Penniston claimed it to be a craft from the future. 

We had visitors from space that night they were meteors. 

Meteorites fall almost every night. Does this mean that when a meteorite falls.., then no other events can happen? No.

Meteorites fall, but this does not match the description given by the witnesses.
We have all these different theories as to what happened.., but no one seems to be able to pick one. It jumps from lighthouse, to fireball, to meteor, none of which match descriptions given. Unless the description can match the event.., then I am going to call this one Unsolved.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

Nonsense. If thousands really did see a spaceship how is it we have zero footage, not one picture that illustrates more than planes and flares? Everybody have broken cameras? News crews were used  the field trying to confirm the claims nobody could. 

No one said spaceship or ETs from what I read. Let's not get angry at them, just for making a report. As for the rest of your post.., feel free to join in the discussion in the Phoenix Thread. My point seems lost on a "few" reports having more weight than "majority".

Stereo seems to think a few is almost none compared the majority. No one seems to be pulling him up on this. Is this bias? Or you obviously agree. So I'll say that the 3 or 4 people claiming it was planes are simply a few.., nearly none by comparison of the majority.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

Weren't you combining about others which cannot debate and resort to personal insets? 

Seems you have become that which you claim to loathe? 

Personally I think you owe those people an apology considering your snide useless reply.  

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

Oh be honest. If you were objective you would be capable of poking holes I Ridpaths excellent and rational explanation instead of dismissing it with a hand wave  it is obvious you want this to be proof of alien visitation and that's all you are interested on discussing or accepting 

I have looked into it objectively. I just have't detailled the whole story. I respond to posts. If someone post BS, I wll call them on it. So far only sceptics have posted BS, so that's all I have had time to reply to. The second an ET believer posts something about radiation levels, I will explain why this is wrong for example.., while asking my own questions.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

They were drunk too christmas party remember? 

And all I said was drugs were a problem at the base I didn't say anyone took them just that it would not be unlikely as the means we're there it is a distinct possibility 

Again neither drugs or alcohol are required for mass halucination  but it was not entirely halucination no matter what as I have pointed out repeatedly a meteor shower was in progress and fireballs were recorded 

If Halt and others on active duty were drunk.., then why not the wing-commander who was attending a Christmas party. This biased logic is obvious. The old drunk pobably looked in the wrong direction.., was blinded by ambient lights at the party.., and saw nothing from "stepping outside" and gave up.

Simple. Not groundbreaking evidence that proves Halt was hallucinating. No other case or event would any investigator do this. Only UFO witnesses. Kinda lame and obvious bias.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

Absolute rubbish . The Hessdalen project is a prime example of what a real investigation into the phenomena looks like. 

Promoting the unsupported tall tales and insulting those who challenge the gigantic holes in the claim is not. 

Tales. I think I'll start a thread about what UFOwitnesses can.., and can't prove when observing a UFO. I think we all have this assumption that these soldiers are carrying DSLR's with $2000 telephoto lenses, with radar detectors, and some giant net to catch the UFO for proof.

UFO reports are simply that. Reports. Observations. To get angry at a UFO report is like someone yelling at the rain. To use UFO reports (that obviously lack evidence) to dismiss UFO reports is backwards logic.

On 11/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, psyche101 said:

He is obviously an attention seeker So could you need it to be true. That does not make talk tales true and it belittles the real world efforts to learn what we can about space and other planets. 

His temper, his changing story and his constant appeals to the media 

Personally I find Penniston just a little more pathetic than Halt. Both ought to be ashamed of themselves. They slipped through the cracks as it is more than obvious  that neither Halt nor Penniston were ever fit for the honor of the duty they were given 

UFO nutters are dime a dozen your no different to any of the others who have tried to push their agenda with this ridiculous claim I would guess it is impatience as all discoveries associated with space are at a slow pace simply due to the vastness of space

A little patience and true objectivity would serve you well if you were to consider it

I asked "What parts prove he is an attention seeker.., as opposed to however he is meant to behave.". Just saying "its obvious" is an insufficient argument. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Fila

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I would take the word of the soldiers on the ground.., who were on active duty that night. As opposed to one older officer who may have been inebriated from the party, and not as alert as those on duty.

It certainly doesn't automatically discredit the others claims. Its merely another claim. Why this gets used as proof positive the other claims are false is beyond comprehension.

For like the fourth time now it was not Just Conrad. I keep telling you that he was the base commander not only did he have plenty of staff to consult, everyone at his party came outside for a look

Nobody saw anything to confirm Halt and Penniston's claims. None of the base personnel, none of the local residents and the British Astronomical Society was intently watching a spectacular meteor show. 

Halt and Penniston were the only claimed immediate witnesses of the party and two refuted the claims of the two who have conflicting accounts! 

The UFO story is obviously an exaggeration of the show nature put on that night. 

And you still have not said which one is telling the truth so again I ask you

Are you proposing Halt is correct or are you proposing that Penniston is correct? 

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground. This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December 1980].

 

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com.au/p/rendlesham-files.html?m=1

 

Quote

If I put a cup into the ocean, and study the water in the cup. I will see no whales. That does not mean whales are non-existent.

And it does not mean the ocean is filled with Kraken's and Mermaids just because somone made up stories about them. 

Quote

The Astronomical society wouldn't be able to confirm an aircraft.., let alone a UFO. They have no authority over objects within our atmosphere.., and were most likely studying Saturn or something that night.., as opposed to having their telescope pointing at lighthouse elevation.., down to the woods.

Again as I have stated repeatedly 

They were most interested in the meteor shower and did track fireballs in the sky. 

That's local not Saturn. 

Quote

I think we are all guilty of this assumption. One I am clearing up in this thread here.... 
Just briefly though.., a satellite with a camera zoomed out to view all of America.., would not see an individual football field.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314663-why-are-ufo-images-always-so-bad/

That was referring to the Phoenix lights and it was claimed to have been up to 500 meters long 

No way the entire planet missed that leaving the media was hyping it up as it was happening everyone was watching even more closely then they were at Hale Bopp. 

Quote

Meteorites fall almost every night. Does this mean that when a meteorite falls.., then no other events can happen? No.

Meteorites fall, but this does not match the description given by the witnesses.

Of a meteor enters the atmosphere it doesn't mean it's cloaking a spaceship either. 

Just how big do you think it was? 

The two people claiming first hand accounts conflict and the live tapes from Halt do indeed match the description of the natural events that night 

Quote

We have all these different theories as to what happened.., but no one seems to be able to pick one. It jumps from lighthouse, to fireball, to meteor, none of which match descriptions given. Unless the description can match the event.., then I am going to call this one Unsolved.

No we do not have different theories all those things happened and its really quite simple and logical 

A fireball was misidentified as a craft going down

The party headed in that direction 

They then saw the lighthouse (Halts winking eye from the live tapes) 

And a meteor and fireball are not jumping around pretty much the same thing for the purpose of this discussion. 

Quote

No one said spaceship or ETs from what I read. Let's not get angry at them, just for making a report. As for the rest of your post.., feel free to join in the discussion in the Phoenix Thread. My point seems lost on a "few" reports having more weight than "majority".

At Phoenix? 

Not really that interested might have a look but I am working from a phone and these long posts are a pain in the neck the memory function seems to have gone since I was last here I can't minimise my window without losing a whole post so I have to start again 

Quote

Stereo seems to think a few is almost none compared the majority. No one seems to be pulling him up on this. Is this bias? Or you obviously agree. So I'll say that the 3 or 4 people claiming it was planes are simply a few.., nearly none by comparison of the majority.

Look up the old threads I posted in I listed more than that however all the claims in the world still require actual evidence

That's what's missing 

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

Like I say I'm on a phone spellchecker took over a bit there without me noticing 

You deride others for derogatory remarks and then go there yourself us what I was trying to get across 

Didn't you say that is what people do when they cannot counter with evidence? 

Quote

I have looked into it objectively. I just have't detailled the whole story. I respond to posts. If someone post BS, I wll call them on it. So far only sceptics have posted BS, so that's all I have had time to reply to. The second an ET believer posts something about radiation levels, I will explain why this is wrong for example.., while asking my own questions.

If you were truly impartial you would have read Ian Ridpaths site in depth and followed the explanation along with Halts live narrative clearly resolving the issue

Had you done more than turn your nose up at it you would have realised there is not three different explanations but all make one very sensibly 

Quote

If Halt and others on active duty were drunk.., then why not the wing-commander who was attending a Christmas party. This biased logic is obvious. The old drunk pobably looked in the wrong direction.., was blinded by ambient lights at the party.., and saw nothing from "stepping outside" and gave up.

Except its hardly Antarctica 

Had there been a spaceship there would be more proof than two conflicting accounts 

We were also watching things fall from the sky all night nothing was recorded as going up 

Quote

Simple. Not groundbreaking evidence that proves Halt was hallucinating. No other case or event would any investigator do this. Only UFO witnesses. Kinda lame and obvious bias.

And a rational outlook would suggest the events which we know were happening were misinterpreted by a couple of men with conflicting accounts 

Its just far more likely than either Halts or Pennistons accounts, which again conflict

No searches of the area the next day and thereafter  confirmed that anything landed in the forest that night 

The evidence supports the natural conclusion, not Halts nor Pennistons

Quote

Tales. I think I'll start a thread about what UFOwitnesses can.., and can't prove when observing a UFO. I think we all have this assumption that these soldiers are carrying DSLR's with $2000 telephoto lenses, with radar detectors, and some giant net to catch the UFO for proof.

Why don't you look at setting up a radio telescope and get it recording 24/7 so you can monitor a bit yourself? 

You might be surprised at what the experience teaches you

Quote

UFO reports are simply that. Reports. Observations. To get angry at a UFO report is like someone yelling at the rain. To use UFO reports (that obviously lack evidence) to dismiss UFO reports is backwards logic.

Hessdalen is groundbreaking UFO research 

UFOlogy is embarrassing. 

Quote

I asked "What parts prove he is an attention seeker.., as opposed to however he is meant to behave.". Just saying "its obvious" is an insufficient argument. 

So you won't look up the posts here where I already posted links to his childish rants? 

Like I said I'm on a phone, this is quite and effort as it is. All you have to do is search here for links to his Facebook rants. Give a bloke a break hey. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by psyche101

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

LOL Good call! 

Once upon a time some took Roswell quite seriously but it's just a joke these days! 

Indeed 

With Kecksburg the craft was tiny, half the size of a VW and went on the back of a flatbed

Obviously such a tiny thing is not crossing space with occupants as claimed by some

Unless it was Transdimensionally Incidental.

or a probe.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Fila said:

No one said spaceship or ETs from what I read. Let's not get angry at them, just for making a report. As for the rest of your post.., feel free to join in the discussion in the Phoenix Thread. My point seems lost on a "few" reports having more weight than "majority".

Stereo seems to think a few is almost none compared the majority. No one seems to be pulling him up on this. Is this bias? Or you obviously agree. So I'll say that the 3 or 4 people claiming it was planes are simply a few.., nearly none by comparison of the majority.

You seem unwilling to accept that there is no majority.

Which majority are you picking?

1. The 5, 6, 7, 8 or more lights majority?

2. The red, white, yellow, or orange light majority?

3. The high altitude or the low altitude majority?

4. The fast or the slow majority?

5. The triangle ship or one of the other reported shapes majority?

6. The people that saw it or the ones that jumped on the bandwagon majority?

7. The single ship or the fleet of UFOs majority?

8. The silent or the heard sound majority?

So which majority are you pretending exists? You've been informed that there is no consensus among the witnesses yet you pretend there is. So please tell me what your majority is and what are the properties of the UFO that night. If you bother to look into it you will not find anything but disagreement.

 

[Erno86]

Some fireball eyewitness cases are due to misidentification of what the fireball actually is --- That is, for some, it's not a falling meteoroid, burning plane, nor a piece of space debris burning up in our atmosphere; but in reality...it's a ET alien starship under intelligent control.

[stereologist]

47 minutes ago, Erno86 said:

Some fireball eyewitness cases are due to misidentification of what the fireball actually is --- That is, for some, it's not a falling meteoroid, burning plane, nor a piece of space debris burning up in our atmosphere; but in reality...it's a ET alien starship under intelligent control.

Do you have an example of this being the case or is this just more made up stuff?

[Erno86]

28 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Do you have an example of this being the case or is this just more made up stuff?

Well...besides my own sighting in 1976 --- Here ya go:

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/133/s133047.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/135/s135320.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/135/s135735.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/136/s136198.html

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, Erno86 said:

Well...besides my own sighting in 1976 --- Here ya go:

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/133/s133047.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/135/s135320.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/135/s135735.html

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/136/s136198.html

The first 3 are not reports of fireballs if they behaved as the witness states. The last is a classic fireball. I've seen one so bright it lit up the entire area briefly turning night into twilight.

None of the descriptions suggests " it's an ET alien starship under intelligent control "

[Fila]

On 11/01/2018 at 8:32 PM, psyche101 said:

For like the fourth time now it was not Just Conrad. I keep telling you that he was the base commander not only did he have plenty of staff to consult, everyone at his party came outside for a look

Nobody saw anything to confirm Halt and Penniston's claims. None of the base personnel, none of the local residents and the British Astronomical Society was intently watching a spectacular meteor show. 

Halt and Penniston were the only claimed immediate witnesses of the party and two refuted the claims of the two who have conflicting accounts! 

The UFO story is obviously an exaggeration of the show nature put on that night. 

And you still have not said which one is telling the truth so again I ask you

Are you proposing Halt is correct or are you proposing that Penniston is correct? 

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground. This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December 1980].

 

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com.au/p/rendlesham-files.html?m=1

IfI step outside my house.., I don't have a full 360 view. I need to walk round the house to see the other side. Even then.., there are other buildings next to my house. I cannot have perfect FOV. It sounds like this guy lives in a tall observation tower.., with full 360 views. Is this true? Where was the house located on the base. Where was the UFO reported? Could he even see Halt and the others? He doesn't say he can. If he can't see Halt, all the men and their torches through the forest.., then he wouldn't see the UFO.

The UFO was in the forest. They had to leave the base to search for it. They could not see it from the base once it entered the trees. By the time he heard them talking about the UFO over the radio.., it would have been within the trees.

Stepping outside during a party to have a look, probably drunk and not in the correct frame of mind after partying and poor vision due to light pollution from the house party lights in no comparison compared to those on active duty who left the base to see the object.

Certainly doesn't dismiss the reports from soldiers who were on active duty at the time.

On 11/01/2018 at 8:32 PM, psyche101 said:

Again as I have stated repeatedly 

They were most interested in the meteor shower and did track fireballs in the sky. 

That's local not Saturn. 

They tracked fireballs in the sky? Does this mean meteorites? If so.., why are we suddenly referring to them as fireballs just for this one case?

Local compared to Saturn yes. But not local compared to say swamp gas, or ball lightning. Astronomers will be looking at celestial objects. They have no authority over terrestrial objects. Just because an astronomer doesn't see a plane.., doesn't mean there were no planes. Ask them how many flights they see each night.

I have already debunked this myth about astronomers being able to see 100% of thy sky.

On 11/01/2018 at 8:32 PM, psyche101 said:

That was referring to the Phoenix lights and it was claimed to have been up to 500 meters long 

No way the entire planet missed that leaving the media was hyping it up as it was happening everyone was watching even more closely then they were at Hale Bopp. 

So was I. I will debunk this myth next week when I finish the thread about UFO images being so poor. Trust me though.., a camera.., any camera pointing down from a satellite would not detect an object 500m wide, and zoom in for a lock. We just believe this from movies.., and our own assumptions.

On 11/01/2018 at 8:32 PM, psyche101 said:

Of a meteor enters the atmosphere it doesn't mean it's cloaking a spaceship either. 

Just how big do you think it was? 

The two people claiming first hand accounts conflict and the live tapes from Halt do indeed match the description of the natural events that night 

I never claimed it was a cloaked spaceship. This is just your defensive response to being cornered.

Meteorites fall almost every night. Does this mean that when a meteorite falls.., then no other events can happen? No.

Meteorites fall, but this does not match the description given by the witnesses of a triangular craft with landing gears etc.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

My word, there's another one of these? Remember the, was it two, threads of old Hazzard's? They went on for about 400 pages, didn't they. 

[Space Commander Travis]

16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

LOL Good call! 

Once upon a time some took Roswell quite seriously but it's just a joke these days! 

Indeed 

With Kecksburg the craft was tiny, half the size of a VW and went on the back of a flatbed

Obviously such a tiny thing is not crossing space with occupants as claimed by some

Yet again, I don't know why people chortle and laugh at the thought of that. If it was manned, then arguably (but even then, perhaps it wouldn't be so ridiculous if it was something like a landing craft like our own Apollo Lunar Module); but it'd be most likely to be unmanned, wouldn't it, like we do. as I've probably said before. 

[Erno86]

First reported sighting of foo fighters?

"A remarkable UFO sighting from the USS Supply in 1904."

http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/08/historic-ufo-sighting-uss-supply.html