Best evidence for ET

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Impedancer said:

I cant tell you..  cause they're all at my place even Eccentrica Gallumbits from the planet Eroticon-six. Some people say her erogenous zones start some four miles from her actual body., Me: I disagree, i say five.

Thanks for that clarification. I thought she had erroneous zones.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, toast said:

Astronomers dont claim something without having checkable data. Astronomers provide very clear images of their findings, UFO heads dont. They only claim to have seen something. Like the people who claim to have seen Elvis, after 16AUG1977.

Complete and utter bull. There are many many cases where physical evidences of a UFO landing have been gathered by serious people trying to put pieces together in order to solve a bigger puzzle.

Who are you kidding?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Does anyone have proof they are not extra-dimensional super intelligent bananas from the Earth's core?   No ..... So, ergo, that is at least just a probable as an unidentified object seen only on Earth being from somewhere other than Earth

Now, if we were seeing unidentified flying object on other planets, then there might be a case to answer.

Please understand, Essan, I am not out to prove anything. I have a belief and that's it. 
It's you people that are so angry at UFOers in here because we won't buy into your beliefs.

I need proof to have a belief?  Bullxxx, I do. Here's my belief. Intelligently designed UFOs buzz planet earth and they are likely of ET origin.

you see?  I don't need lectures and I don't give them either, I leave my opinions.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

46 minutes ago, stereologist said:

No need to cut and paste. I actually go to links and check them out.

That is a rehash of the claims from 2012.

There is nothing in there about UFOs or being from a previous world still existing.

The problem  here is the same as i n 2012. The prophesies don't appear to be old. They in fact, might be modern ideas from outside of the Hopi.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/did-the-hopi-predict-the-end-of-the-world

No UFOs, that was my addition from another writer. The Hopi do have that four epochs of earth.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

41 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The hundreds of reports, not thousands, show that there was something there but nothing more than planes.

The AlwaysAliens crowd really has no idea what happened. They don't really care since their answer is AlwaysAliens.

Planes made them call police, eh?

How feekin sad

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

32 minutes ago, stereologist said:

We expect you to say this since you are an Always Alien member.

Even the case of the Phoenix Lights which was so clearly planes has you pretending it was something else. You've even fallen for the disgraced member of the AlwaysAliens crowd that came up with that idea to save face.

Here is how the Always Aliens crowd plays the game.

• They rely on appeals to authority
• They deny that the two people with binoculars ad telescopes were able to get a better view
• They deny that the video shows it is not a rigid craft
• They deny that human fallibility leads to the wide range of reports
• They tell fake stories to try and shore up their failed claims

When it comes to events like Battle over LA, UFOs over Washington DC, Phoenix lights, UFO wave of Belgium they are in the AlwaysAliens camp.

• They don't care that no one reported anything in the air
• They don't care that they have to resort to a photograph not of the event
• They don't care that they have no idea what people reported
• They don't care that the only photograph was a hoax which fooled them

The AlwaysAliens crowd does not care. Plain and simple.

 

It seems you want to start an argument so I'll just let you ramble on to yourself.

Bye/

[stereologist]

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Complete and utter bull. There are many many cases where physical evidences of a UFO landing have been gathered by serious people trying to put pieces together in order to solve a bigger puzzle.

Who are you kidding?

That's simply not true. Of course the AlwaysAliens crowd will assign things like rabbit holes to landing gear imprints. That is what they do.

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No UFOs, that was my addition from another writer. The Hopi do have that four epochs of earth.

I was well aware of their 4 worlds. I read Waters book.

The UFO bit and creatures from other worlds still surviving is the sort of hocus pocus shenanigans that the AlwaysAliens crowd is known for.

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Planes made them call police, eh?

How feekin sad

Event 1 was caught on video. How sad that the AlwaysAliens crowd is so close minded they are disregarding the actual evidence.

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

It seems you want to start an argument so I'll just let you ramble on to yourself.

Bye/

Just pointing out how the AlwaysAlien crowd operates.

Did you know that even in this thread that a member of the AlwaysAliens tried to slip in some falsehoods?

• That the modern, as in post 1963, Hopi prophesies suggested aliens
• That the Phoenix Lights were seen in New Mexico
• That there were multiple craft, not the single plane formation of 5 planes
• That the Navy videos show gymnastics in the sky
• The government commented on the contents of the Navy videos
• That there was video from Fravor's flight
• Tried to mix events 1 and 2 of the PL

 

 

[toast]

58 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 Complete and utter bull. There are many many cases where physical evidences of a UFO landing have been gathered by serious people trying to put pieces together in order to solve a bigger puzzle.

If you still think so, please let me know what kind of physical evidence there is and who and/or which public, accepted scientific board examined and approved the findings as to be of extraterrestrial origin and as a result of extraterrestrial being`s creativity/action.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Complete and utter bull. There are many many cases where physical evidences of a UFO landing have been gathered by serious people trying to put pieces together in order to solve a bigger puzzle.

Who are you kidding?

to say that with zero substantiation is just a story, its not anything of value you spew it as your idea of proof and those you spew it at say, really? post the proof, you reply with some excuse why you wont so of course no one except other blind faith alwayalieners buy it,

so why not i really want to see one case of physical evidence of a UFO, not excuses or bs hearsay, no burnt grass isnt of itself proof what burnt it.

 

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

There are many many cases where physical evidences of a UFO landing have been gathered by serious people trying to put pieces together in order to solve a bigger puzzle

all mouth, no links- where? show us some

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

It seems you want to start an argument so I'll just let you ramble on to yourself.

Bye/

this is the kinda reply you get when people type with the fantasy glasses on & not thinking.

 Yep, when logic, rational thinking, basic common sense & at times the bleeding obvious is thrown at you I guess it is starting an argument to folk like you! It's the best you can do

Oh yeah, & it's also classed as trolling...

stereo is absolutely right- maybe you'll see it one day

[ChrLzs]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Thousands of witnesses. Here is what one saw

It don;t look like flares to me.

Gee, Earl, that's a great example of .. 'a drawing'.  In fact it looks exactly, EXACTLY like a formation of planes would, for someone with a slightly blurred vision.  Now you do remember that their were flares AND a formation of planes involved in that sighting?  The person might not have been wearing their glasses, didn't know they needed glasses, or their eyes were just not focusing on the right distance (a common effect when viewing things in the sky that have no distance clues).

 

 

 

So,... hmmmm, now what on earth could it be then...?  Go on, Earl, have a long think and get back to us.

 

 

{think music}

And remember Earl, you're posting that as the best evidence..... 

I'm trying not to be unkind, so I won't add to that observation.

[Golden Duck]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

There were a total of 8 different UFOs that night. So naturally different people had different sightings but a very common sighting was of the UFO as depicted, a flying V

So tell me, thousands of people claim that saw extraordinary crafts in the sky. They spontaneously called local police, sheriffs' departments, state police, TV stations, radio stations, Mayors' offices, Governor's office, all over the state of Arizona, western New Mexico and northern Mexico and all obviously without planning. How can this be if there was nothing in the sky?

(and spare me the tall tales of "flares")

 

Why were a million people quiet?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

41 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

In fact it looks exactly, EXACTLY like a formation of planes would, for someone with a slightly blurred vision. 

Prove your point. Show me the guy - and HUNDREDS of others had blurred vision. Then I'll listen to you.

You throw an idea out, and you treat it like FACT. No evidence, nothing but your uttering. And you actually think that if someone had blurred vision they wouldn't take that into account and not call the police because they could not be sure?

Do you think that people in Arizona, New Mexico, northern Mexico all never saw planes before - or since? They all call the police over PLANES?

In other words, you steer the evidence to support your ridiculous theory simply by fabricating "blurred vision". 

Nice! 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Why were a million people quiet?

They were in the house watching reruns of Hee Haw

[ChrLzs]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Prove your point.  Show me the guy..

Sorry, me?  Who do you want me to find - the person you are NOT citing?  It's your claim, sweetie.  BTW, you might want to calm down.  It[s not our fault that your non-issues are getting a hard time..  BTW, the guy who first spotted the formation of planes has already been thoroughly cited by others - I guess you deliberately missed that.

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

- and HUNDREDS of others had blurred vision.

Really?  I've seen no evidence of 'hundreds', and even less where the descriptions matched.  The MUCH FEWER actual reports are disparate and frankly, woefully documented.  I'd say mostly it was that media beatup.  Or do you trust the media on this topic?  That's a bit of a change....

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Then I'll listen to you.

I'm not concerned about you not listening - you've shown that to be your MO quite well in the past.  I'm posting to correct your crap, and for those lurking, listening and learning.  Definitely NOT you.

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You throw an idea out, and you treat it like FACT. No evidence, nothing but your uttering.

You REALLY need to check the mirror - see the hypocrite?

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And you actually think that if someone had blurred vision they wouldn't take that into account and not call the police because they could not be sure?

You actually think people don't make mistakes, or just want to join in the 'party', or are unfamiliar with their night skies and what things like aircraft in formation look like, at night?  Those are not the thoughts of someone with functioning logic.

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Do you think that people in Arizona, New Mexico, northern Mexico all never saw planes before - or since? They all call the police over PLANES?

At odd angles, people do easily get confused by aircraft, especially if they have landing lights on or are in formation.  Do you think that is something that everyone is familiar with?  Have you spent much time near an airport?  How often do you see aircraft in formation?  Do you not agree that copycat reports often spring from people's unfamiliarity with the night sky?  If you don't, you are being deliberately naive .. or delusional.

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In other words, you steer the evidence to support your ridiculous theory simply by fabricating "blurred vision".

I'll let others decide on the veracity of my posts and whether the issues I raise are considered and sensible and correct.

 

It seems that they have already decided on yours..............

 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Gee, Earl, that's a great example of .. 'a drawing'.  In fact it looks exactly, EXACTLY like a formation of planes would, for someone with a slightly blurred vision.  Now you do remember that their were flares AND a formation of planes involved in that sighting?  The person might not have been wearing their glasses, didn't know they needed glasses, or their eyes were just not focusing on the right distance (a common effect when viewing things in the sky that have no distance clues).

 

 

 

So,... hmmmm, now what on earth could it be then...?  Go on, Earl, have a long think and get back to us.

 

 

{think music}

And remember Earl, you're posting that as the best evidence..... 

I'm trying not to be unkind, so I won't add to that observation.

you left out the lenes flare hoax pic he says is from the washington event where no pics were taken.

[the13bats]

38 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

 

Prove your point. Show me the guy

i kindly ask YOU to do that and you never do....

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Sorry, me?  Who do you want me to find - the person you are NOT citing?  It's your claim, sweetie.  BTW, you might want to calm down.  It[s not our fault that your non-issues are getting a hard time..  BTW, the guy who first spotted the formation of planes has already been thoroughly cited by others - I guess you deliberately missed that.

You made the claim that they guy has blurry vision. Support it.  Not me, YOU. Your claim.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Really?  I've seen no evidence of 'hundreds', and even less where the descriptions matched.  The MUCH FEWER actual reports are disparate and frankly, woefully documented.  I'd say mostly it was that media beatup.  Or do you trust the media on this topic?  That's a bit of a change....

That's because sceptic.com doesn't cover it truthfully.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm not concerned about you not listening - you've shown that to be your MO quite well in the past.  I'm posting to correct your crap, and for those lurking, listening and learning.  Definitely NOT you.

No, you are posting to give me sh!t.  Don't lie. 

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

You REALLY need to check the mirror - see the hypocrite?

You actually think people don't make mistakes, or just want to join in the 'party', or are unfamiliar with their night skies and what things like aircraft in formation look like, at night?  Those are not the thoughts of someone with functioning logic.

Oh, yeah and thousands of people had these "mistakes" (not proven by you or anyone) on the same night, never before, never again

Brilliant!  Now prove they were "mistakes".  No Chrlzs, pulling something from the bag of Wishful Thinking isn't proof even if you say it a second time while screaming, jumping up and down, and waving your arms.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

At odd angles, people do easily get confused by aircraft [SNIP the innanity]

 

It seems that they have already decided on yours..............

 

Here we go again. People are confused. Not any time in the past., not any time in the future... just that day, all these people got confused!

PROVE it.  You say they were confused, I'll see they all had 20-20 vision and got it right on the money. No confusion. UFOs exist!

How's that.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

They were in the house watching reruns of Hee Haw

Maybe, but Hee Haw was still sydicated then, wasn't it?

The point is that the hundreds of witnesses, in Phoenix, is not an impressive number. It means for every witness that reported the sighting there were 1,000 Phoenicians that didn't.

The witnesses that used optical aids such as telescopes or binoculars said the lights were planes.

To only accept one answer is confirmation bias.  You're ignoring the MAGA (Most Assuredly Generic Airplanes) crowd.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Golden Duck

[the13bats]

24 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The witnesses that used optical aids such as telescopes or binoculars said the lights were planes

case settled

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Prove your point. Show me the guy - and HUNDREDS of others had blurred vision. Then I'll listen to you.

You throw an idea out, and you treat it like FACT. No evidence, nothing but your uttering. And you actually think that if someone had blurred vision they wouldn't take that into account and not call the police because they could not be sure?

Do you think that people in Arizona, New Mexico, northern Mexico all never saw planes before - or since? They all call the police over PLANES?

In other words, you steer the evidence to support your ridiculous theory simply by fabricating "blurred vision". 

Nice! 

Now you are back to using straw man arguments.

SO far you have done exactly when you are complaining about: "You throw an idea out, and you treat it like FACT. No evidence, nothing but your uttering."

Tim Ley did not call the police. Did you even read what he had to say?

False: No one in New Mexico saw the Phoenix Lights.

False: That all people called the police. It is even false that many people called the police.

Here is a link about eyewitness reports. Take the time to read something for a change instead of making up fake stories.

http://www.cufos.org/pdfs/Skeptical_Explanations_Appendix_A.pdf