Ex-NASA scientist claims that UFOs are real

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Here is a clear falsehood

That is simply false, false, false. The radar is capable of tracking into space which is defined as 100km up.

This is based on a single type of radar used in one country and applies to continental flights.

There are also weather radars that have ranges out to 230km. As we have recently seen they have been used to track a meteorite into the ocean.

Here's a good example too. 

 

See China's Falling Space Station in These Radar Images

[Fila]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I don't think I can recall ever meeting a skeptic, here or on any forum (inc. some rather crazy ones..) who thought that we were alone in the Universe.  Plenty, including me, don't think they are 'common' and also don't think they have visited earth or are responsible for any UFO sightings.

But I've met plenty of FTB's who raise that same strawman OVER and OVER.

Here's 4  met and I haven't been here a long as you. This just shows your bias.

[Fila]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The ASR is used in a dense airport area - the US. An aircraft at 2500 feet has a horizon that is 61 miles away. An aircraft at 35,000 feet has a horizon 229 miles away. Radar is a line of sight device. The small range of the ASR is restricted due to the number of radar installations and air traffic control used in the US and the huge number of planes flying at any given moment.

Besides, the 60 mile range allows a radar to detect the edge of outer space which is defined as 100kms or 62 miles up.

Military radar has a much greater range. Typical radar ranges are over 200 miles and have been that far back into the 1950s.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/03/17/3964782.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-L

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erieye

Only up to 70,000 feet.

https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/beam_max

How do UFOs (or other objects) suddenly disappear from the RADAR screen?

There are several ways:

1. The object could accelerate horizontally to a point outside the range of the RADAR.
2. The object could rise vertically until it is above the top edge of the RADAR beam.
3. The object could descend until it is below the bottom edge of the RADAR beam.
4.The object could move to a location directly above the RADAR station.
5. The object could do a combination of the above.
6. If the object is flat, it could turn so the beam reflection does not return to the RADAR set.
7. If the object is a balloon, it could burst, causing the remains to rapidly fall to the ground.
8. The RADAR set could be out of adjustment, making targets appear and disappear.

https://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/radarfaq.htm

[Fila]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Here's a good example too. 

See China's Falling Space Station in These Radar Images

" which they say is one of the most powerful such radars worldwide."

Of course there are other stronger radars.., but they are really being used for specific purposes. Anything that doesn't match what they are looking for is considered background noise.., and tuned out.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Fila

[psyche101]

What RADAR image suggests that UFOs come from, or leave via space? 

None. 

So does RADAR support the ETH. 

No. 

What does RADAR support? 

That UFOs exist. 

Has that been denied by anyone at all? 

No. 

Quite simple really. 

RADAR supports the claim that UFOs exist and shows terrestrial bound objects. Anything that claims otherwise is wild speculation. From the smallest array to the largest on earth. Every space agency tracking asteroids  comets and any NEO does not confirm UFOs coming from space to earth, or leaving it. Nothing has supported the claim that RADAR supports the ETH. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by psyche101

[Fila]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Nothing has supported the claim that RADAR supports the ETH. 

Is this considered handwaving? I don't think anyone made that claim.
I was just debunking your assumption that because radar hasn't tracked a UFO into space.., then UFOs are not from space. This is an incorrect conclusion.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Fila

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Is this considered handwaving?

No, I just don't like addressing you personally. I don't like you. You are rude and arrogant. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

I don't think anyone made that claim.

Yes. Kevin Knuth did in the link provided by Golden Duck. He states:

While there is no single case for which there exists evidence that would stand up to scientific rigor, there are cases with simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, along with radar returns and photographic evidence revealing patterns of activity that are compelling.

Do try and keep up please. After all its not all about you is it. Where did you think that aspect of the discussion originated anyway? 

Quote

I was just debunking your assumption that because radar hasn't tracked a UFO into space.., then UFOs are not from space. This is an incorrect conclusion.

No it's not  and you have not shown otherwise. You have made your own personal biased assumptions as you tend to do. When a UFO is tracked  more than one RADAR can be used. None have ever shown any indication of affiliation with space, one has to make that connection themselves on a personal level as you appear to have done here. We track meteors, comets and signals, but there arent any UFOs on those records. 

[Fila]

31 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, I just don't like addressing you personally. I don't like you. You are rude and arrogant. 

Look at your avatar, lol. You like to dish it out.., but can't take it hey.
 

31 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes. Kevin Knuth did in the link provided by Golden Duck. He states:

While there is no single case for which there exists evidence that would stand up to scientific rigor, there are cases with simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, along with radar returns and photographic evidence revealing patterns of activity that are compelling.

He isn't saying radar proves UFOs are ET. Nice attempt at twisting words. Radar picks up UFOs. This is not used as a link to prove they are ET.

31 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

When a UFO is tracked  more than one RADAR can be used. None have ever shown any indication of affiliation with space, one has to make that connection themselves on a personal level as you appear to have done here. We track meteors, comets and signals, but there arent any UFOs on those records. 

Do try and keep up please. After all its not all about you is it. Where did you think that aspect of the discussion originated anyway? 

Your assumptions on how radar works in inaccurate. Please do try and keep up.., after all its not all about you blah blah blah.. 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/319297-ex-nasa-scientist-claims-that-ufos-are-real/?do=findComment&comment=6489928

Edited July 6, 2018 by Fila

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, Fila said:

...

He isn't saying radar proves UFOs are ET. Nice attempt at twisting words. Radar picks up UFOs. This is not used as a link to prove they are ET.

...

Read again:

Quote

...

There is a great deal of evidence that a small percentage of these UFO sightings are unidentified structured craft exhibiting flight capabilities beyond any known human technology. While there is no single case for which there exists evidence that would stand up to scientific rigor, there are cases with simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, along with radar returns and photographic evidence revealing patterns of activity that are compelling.

...

Emphasis mine

You should know that a paragraph contains sentences to convey a particular idea.

[Fila]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

structured craft exhibiting flight capabilities beyond any known human technology.

This is not saying radar proves UFOs are ET. Even though he is discussing ET.

You are saying that. Not him.

He is saying Radar picks up UFOs. Period. End.

Even though he says UFOs are ET.., he is not saying Radar proves this. He is saying radar detects UFOs..,which he thinks are ET owned.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Fila

[Minimalists]

8 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Not sure about that (bold).  If you're talking existence, the fact we haven't made contact doesn't shift the probabilities towards their non existence.  The fact that in a universe with billions of habitable planets we're the anomaly sounds absolutely more surreal than anything else.  If instead you're talking about contact on earth, then I agree, there is no evidence so far.

 

Quote

The fact that in a universe with billions of habitable planets we're the anomaly sounds absolutely more surreal than anything else. 

What habitable planets? We know that there are no planets within our own solar system that will support life as we know it on Earth. There are other planets outside our solar system but there is no evidence that any of these will support life and none they have found so far.

Quote

If you're talking existence, the fact we haven't made contact doesn't shift the probabilities towards their non existence.

Let's just split hairs here and call it 50/50 chance. 

Quote

If instead you're talking about contact on earth, then I agree, there is no evidence so far.

My post was a mixed bag of what if's really...

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

This is not saying radar proves UFOs are ET. Even though he is discussing ET.

You are saying that. Not him.

He is saying Radar picks up UFOs. Period. End.

Even though he says UFOs are ET.., he is not saying Radar proves this. He is saying radar detects UFOs..,which he thinks are ET owned.

again ... note it's all in the same paragraph.If you have trouble ho w a paragraph is constructed maybe you could get in touch with @Mr Walker.

[Fila]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

again ... note it's all in the same paragraph.If you have trouble ho w a paragraph is constructed maybe you could get in touch with @Mr Walker.

He is not saying radar proves the UFOs are ET. He is saying radar is evidence for flying machines.., which he believes to be ET owned.., but the radar data was not the deciding factor.

He also mentions simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, and photographic evidence. Do you think he is talking about pictures of aliens that prove UFOs are aliens?

No.., its his theory. There is a lot of evidence for UFOs. He has reviewed that evidence.., and made a decision. Sorry this offends you 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

Here we have another purposeful and obvious lie. Nowhere in this link does it state " Only up to 70,000 feet. " That's a flat out lie

https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/beam_max

Here is what it does say

Quote

How do we know the path of the beam all times?

Aside from when AP is seen on the radar, we don't! To know the path of the beam would require us to know the exact composition of the moisture, temperature and pressure in the atmosphere, up to 70,000 feet, every minute or so, within about 240 miles of the radar and that capability does not exist.

Quote

At 30 miles from the radar, the beam is approximately 3,000 feet wide. At 60 miles, the beam is about 6,000 feet wide. At 120 miles the beam is nearly 12,000 feet or over two miles wide.

What this does tell us is that weather radar can each outer space at 100km.

[stereologist]

Here is more made up malarkey.

Quote

Of course there are other stronger radars.., but they are really being used for specific purposes. Anything that doesn't match what they are looking for is considered background noise.., and tuned out.

The stream of malarkey being vomited into threads never ceases.

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

What habitable planets? We know that there are no planets within our own solar system that will support life as we know it on Earth. There are other planets outside our solar system but there is no evidence that any of these will support life and none they have found so far.

Let's just split hairs here and call it 50/50 chance. 

My post was a mixed bag of what if's really...

I'm fully aware there is no evidence of habitable planets or other life in the universe.  I wasn't particularly having a snatch at you about it, I was just pointing out the fact there is a difference between probabilities of life in the universe compared to contacts with aliens on earth.  We don't need to attach ourselves to the scientific method every time and refute all possibilities, even the most logical ones because, despite what we believe, we're not that intelligent.  IMO logic would suggest that it would be arrogant to believe we are alone in the universe, amidst billions of galaxies, billions and billions of stars and (putting it mildly) probably millions of planets orbiting within the goldilocks zone. 

Instead the conspiracy theory of aliens in bases, hidden away for half a century in cahoots with all Govts on earth, or at least all major Govts on earth despite the fact political leaders and personnel change constantly in these countries, sounds quite a masterful and unreal plot.  Instead of the "he said, she said" scenarios from retired personnel, THIS IS where evidence is needed compared to life in the universe where we can't obtain evidence at the moment because we're not developed enough.

That's the point I was making.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Black Red Devil

[Truthseeker007]

2 hours ago, The Starman said:

About what ?

Anthropomorphism is a common thing in ancient cultures.

That is only your opinion. You are going to be so floored if you ever learn the world is not what you think it is.

[Truthseeker007]

10 minutes ago, The Starman said:

It's just one of many archaeological and anthropological examples. There is a lionman figure, older more than 4 times compared to this lizardman.

Egypt has a lot of lion figures. Not lizard man but Anunnaki.

[stereologist]

20 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

That is only your opinion. You are going to be so floored if you ever learn the world is not what you think it is.

You are going to be so floored when you learn about the world and find out you've been incredibly wrong.

The site you linked to for the images is a misleading site. It refers to the figurine as lizard men when the figurines are women with lizard heads. The bodies are clearly women. The heads are not.

The earlier culture was the Halaf. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/half/hd_half.htm

The culture producing these figurines is the Ubaid. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ubai/hd_ubai.htm

The site you  used states the following

Quote

Those are real male and female reptilian statues

That is laughable. The figures shown are clearly not reptilian. Please show me a reptile that has the mammalian characteristic of breasts. Please show me a lizard with the legs under the body and not extending to the side. Please show me a figurine with a tail.

The rest of the site goes on about some silliness for no apparent reason.

http://ancients-bg.com/mystery-of-the-al-ubaid-lizardmen/

The figurines are properly referred to as Ophidian figurines.

[Minimalists]

Anyone having David Icke flashbacks?

[Mark One]

My hay-fevered blurry eyes misread the title of this topic.  At first I thought it read - Ex-Nazi Scientist....

 

 

[Dejarma]

15 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Those are real male and female reptilian statues

not sure who said the above but you sound sure. i'm just interested how you worked out what one is male & what one is female?

[stereologist]

The Ophidian figurines are found in only a portion of the Ubaid cultural area. These figures differ from the fuller figured forms seen in earlier artwork. Part of the artwork may be indicative of cranial deformation.

[stereologist]

55 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

not sure who said the above but you sound sure. i'm just interested how you worked out what one is male & what one is female?

I was referring to the site used by truthseeker007 that is the link I  used in my post

http://ancients-bg.com/mystery-of-the-al-ubaid-lizardmen/

[Dejarma]

20 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Part of the artwork may be indicative of cranial deformation.

Looks more like hair or ceremonial headgear to me