Minot AFB - 1968

[Hazzard]

19 hours ago, Zebra3 said:

sky, you're just wasting your time with people who really couldn't care less about the subject other than using it for their own amusement.

Not at all. 

Its just that Skyeagles take on what constitutes "evidence" is far from what actually is needed.

[Dejarma]

23 hours ago, Zebra3 said:

sky, you're just wasting your time with people who really couldn't care less about the subject other than using it for their own amusement.

yeah you're right @Zebra3 so best not type anymore.. suits me 

maybe join a knitting & crochet forum? just a thought 

[Zebra3]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

yeah you're right @Zebra3 so best not type anymore.. suits me 

maybe join a knitting & crochet forum? just a thought 

And, there you go. Thanks for solidifying my observation.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Zebra3

[skyeagle409]

13 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Not at all. 

Its just that Skyeagles take on what constitutes "evidence" is far from what actually is needed.

I know from experience what the evidence depicts, which places me in a position to simply tell you when the piece of your puzzle doesn't fit. In other words, when I posted certain radar data, I did so for a particularly good reason and all I asked of skeptics was to provide evidence of any aircraft of mankind capable of performing what the following radar data depicts and stay intact.

I should further add the following data from an all-weather radar was not indicative of atmospheric phenomena because the non-human craft was interacting with the aircraft which can be determined as the object reacted to each of the radar lock-on's. 

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000

05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

22 hours ago, Saru said:

I meant in general - I wasn't referring to any specific incident.

 

I can agree that because there have been cases where I personally debunked certain UFO sightings that I knew were conventional aircraft and even a blimp that flew near our location one evening, and of course, I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO cases can be explained in down-to-earth terms.

The remaining percentage is what I am interested in because I know the objects were not conventional aircraft or the result of atmospheric phenomena (AP) because specific return signatures of the radar contacts ruled out AP which is underlined by the fact that the objects were interacting with aircraft in well-documented cases, which has also been documented in the Motion Study as well and I might add that the "cat-and-mouse" behavior of UFOs as they interact with aircraft are well-known.

These 5 UFO Traits, Captured on Video by Navy Fighters, Defy Explanation 

Called the '5 observables' by a former Pentagon investigator, they include hypersonic speed, erratic movement and the ability to fly without wings. 

1) Anti-gravity lift 

Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration 

The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed.

3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures 

If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence. 

4) Low observability, or cloaking 

Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.

5) Trans-medium travel 

Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.

These 5 UFO Traits, Captured on Video by Navy Fighters, Defy Explanation | HISTORY

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by skyeagle409

[Hazzard]

1 hour ago, skyeagle409 said:

I know from experience what the evidence depicts, which places me in a position to simply tell you when the piece of your puzzle doesn't fit. In other words, when I posted certain radar data, I did so for a particularly good reason and all I asked of skeptics was to provide evidence of any aircraft of mankind capable of performing what the following radar data depicts and stay intact.

I should further add the following data from an all-weather radar was not indicative of atmospheric phenomena because the non-human craft was interacting with the aircraft which can be determined as the object reacted to each of the radar lock-on's. 

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000

05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

 

 

I rest my case.   #burdenofproof

[skyeagle409]

52 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

I rest my case.   #burdenofproof

Well, how about addressing the data I posted? Or post  #305 

•  

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by skyeagle409

[Hazzard]

2 hours ago, skyeagle409 said:

Well, how about addressing the data I posted? Or post  #305 

•  

 

If I didnt already its for a good reason. Im guessing its another one of your logical fallacies or the usual dishonest debating tactics.

[Essan]

18 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Not at all. 

Its just that Skyeagles take on what constitutes "evidence" is far from what actually is needed.

I saw something I could not explain.  No-one I know could explain it either.  Ergo, it proves the existence of God for there can be no other explanation!