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 -

Minot AFB - 1968


Recommended Posts

On 6/25/2023 at 5:16 PM, skyeagle409 said:

Not in this case. The object was a structured craft according to witnesses, which changed its heading, airspeed and remember, it also reversed its course. 

4219c9728a06ccc1bb0d31b383882df4.jpg

 

The Minot AFB UAP was also a structured craft. 

 

Can you explain what a heavily retouched photo is meant to show?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Can you explain what a heavily retouched photo is meant to show?

It's just more of choose your own adventure nonsense. he can't pick a topic and stick with it . mainly because the questions and facts posed to him demolish his stories and fantasies. 

On a related note, the latest accessory for this sub forum is on sale.

 

aHR0cHM6Ly9zY29udGVudC1pYWQzLTIueHguZmJjZG4ubmV0L3YvdDM5LjMwODA4LTYvMzQyOTY5NzUyXzU1ODIwMzA0MzA4Njg2-0xLTcmX25jX3NpZD04YmZlYjkmX25jX29oYz1SS2U4OXkzOEFkc0FYOTZ.webp.6fb719761c28df8e73ab0741b06067a3.webp

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2023 at 5:44 AM, bmk1245 said:

Nowadays almost everyone has camera 24/7, where did all those impressive "huge spaceships" wanished, huh?

Space?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Can you explain what a heavily retouched photo is meant to show?

The photo has been analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, skyeagle409 said:

The photo has been analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object.

That's not true.  The photo  was retouched to be printed in the LA Times.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Trelane said:

It's just more of choose your own adventure nonsense. he can't pick a topic and stick with it . mainly because the questions and facts posed to him demolish his stories and fantasies. 

On a related note, the latest accessory for this sub forum is on sale.

 

aHR0cHM6Ly9zY29udGVudC1pYWQzLTIueHguZmJjZG4ubmV0L3YvdDM5LjMwODA4LTYvMzQyOTY5NzUyXzU1ODIwMzA0MzA4Njg2-0xLTcmX25jX3NpZD04YmZlYjkmX25jX29oYz1SS2U4OXkzOEFkc0FYOTZ.webp.6fb719761c28df8e73ab0741b06067a3.webp

 

 

Rather amusing considering that you have yet to produce man-made evidence that refutes my extraterrestrial evidence. :alien: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's not true.  The photo  was retouched to be printed in the LA Times.

Well, let's take a look here.

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES –> Photo analysis by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Phd.

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES (mysite.com)

 

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The author admits to speculation and making presumptions.

 

 Not really the case, and it seems that you are unaware of the rest of the story pertaining to that object captured in the searchlights. The object was first tracked by one SCR-268 radar, and two SCR 270 radars before the object crossed the coastline. In other words, multiple radars confirmation the object was a real craft, and those contacts were in addition to eyewitness accounts as the object passed directly overhead and around the LA area. In all, there were thousands upon thousands of people who saw the object and the Army's failed attempts to shoot it down.

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES (mysite.com)

As in the Minot AFB case, the objects are real and not ours.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skyeagle409 said:

 

 Not really the case, and it seems that you are unaware of the rest of the story pertaining to that object captured in the searchlights. The object was first tracked by one SCR-268 radar, and two SCR 270 radars before the object crossed the coastline. In other words, multiple radars confirmation the object was a real craft, and those contacts were in addition to eyewitness accounts as the object passed directly overhead and around the LA area. In all, there were thousands upon thousands of people who saw the object and the Army's failed attempts to shoot it down.

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES (mysite.com)

As in the Minot AFB case, the objects are real and not ours.

You presented a highly altered photo; and when called out on it you present analysis that the author concedes is speculative.  Furthermore, the article was - true to form - so old that the supposed archival photos are on links long since dead.

Caught out again.  Time for another bait and switch.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You presented a highly altered photo; and when called out on it you present analysis that the author concedes is speculative. 

 That is an old well-known debunker's ploy that you posted. :lol::alien: 

It seems that you also ignored the fact the object in the photo was first tracked by three radars as the object approached the California coastline, and I might add, not very far from where the father of the U-2 and SR-71, Clarence Kelly, his wife, and Lockheed engineers, witnessed a UAP over the ocean, and not very far from where a Minuteman missile was launched, which was eventually attacked by a UAP, and not very far where the Navy encountered UAPs decades later. I almost forgot to mention that is not far from where the Air Force encountered flying discs over Muroc AAF, and Rogers Dry Lake on July 8, 1947, which so happens to be the same date the Army AF reported the capture of a flying saucer near Roswell, New Mexico.  

It shows a pattern of UAP activity off Southern California.

 

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

 That is an old well-known debunker's ploy that you posted. :lol::alien: 

It seems that you also ignored the fact the object in the photo was first tracked by three radars as the object approached the California coastline, and I might add, not very far from where the father of the U-2 and SR-71, Clarence Kelly, his wife, and Lockheed engineers, witnessed a UAP over the ocean, and not very far from where a Minuteman missile was launched, which was eventually attacked by a UAP, and not very far where the Navy encountered UAPs decades later. I almost forgot to mention that is not far from where the Air Force encountered flying discs over Muroc AAF, and Rogers Dry Lake on July 8, 1947, which so happens to be the same date the Army AF reported the capture of a flying saucer near Roswell, New Mexico.  

It shows a pattern of UAP activity off Southern California.

 

You were plain wrong wrong when you said the photo you presented was enhanced for analysis.  It is almost as if you tried to intentionally BS the audience.

As it turns out you couldn't provide a copy of the photo from the LA Times archives. It's almost as if you are incompetent at verifying your sources.

Now your avoiding discussing the photo.  It's almost as if you can't admit you're wrong.

Does this explain why you periodically spam various discussion forums?  You're hoping for an audience with an appetite for your BS?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You were plain wrong wrong when you said the photo you presented was enhanced for analysis. 

LOL!! I was right on the money. :w00t: I said at post   #29 

 "The photo has been analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object." and look what you posted :lol:   Next time you try to pull the wool over people's eyes, make sure you cover the holes. :whistle:

 

 

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

LOL!! I was right on the money. :w00t: I said at post   #29 

 "The photo has been analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object." and look what you posted :lol:   Next time you try to pull the wool over people's eyes, make sure you cover the holes. :whistle:

 

 

Wrong.  The photo you posted is the highly retouched copy for publication.

If you could find the version from the archives, you'd know this.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Wrong.  The photo you posted is the highly retouched copy for publication.

If you could find the version from the archives, you'd know this.

I am right on the money, and you know it, so there is nothing further for you to add that will change that reality especially since the craft was tracked on 3 radar systems and witnessed by thousands of people.  

Convert JPG to PDF online - convert-jpg-to-pdf.net (minotb52ufo.com)

 

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

I am right on the money, and you know it, so there is nothing further for you to add that will change that reality especially since the craft was tracked on 3 radar systems and witnessed by thousands of people.  

Convert JPG to PDF online - convert-jpg-to-pdf.net (minotb52ufo.com)

 

I originally asked you the purpose of posting a highly altered photo.  You answered incorrectly that it was enhanced for analysis.

Your error, and your useless sources, were pointed out.  And you can't admit your wrong.

If you're not willing to discuss the highly retouched photo, why post it?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He isn't willing, because he is unable. I smell a fraud and a liar as well as someone grossly misinformed. Not shocked at all his unwillingness to stay on topic when confronted.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I originally asked you the purpose of posting a highly altered photo.  You answered incorrectly that it was enhanced for analysis.

Your error, and your useless sources, were pointed out.  And you can't admit your wrong.

If you're not willing to discuss the highly retouched photo, why post it?

Sorry, but I have already posted that the photo of the UAP was enhanced, so you have no case. 

The Minot AFB UFO Case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 | Documents | Interviews | Analysis (minotb52ufo.com)

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Trelane said:

He isn't willing, because he is unable. I smell a fraud and a liar as well as someone grossly misinformed. Not shocked at all his unwillingness to stay on topic when confronted.

How amusing that you would say such a thing when you continue to side-step my challenge to you to post man-made evidence that refutes my extraterrestrial evidence. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

Sorry, but I have already posted that the photo of the UAP was enhanced, so you have no case. 

The Minot AFB UFO Case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 | Documents | Interviews | Analysis (minotb52ufo.com)

I know what you posted.  We all do.  Even Blind Freddy can see you're wrong.

BTW.  You brought up the 1942 Battle of LA.  Is this latest post your way of saying that your little disk of notes is woefully inadequate; and, you'd prefer to get back on topic?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I know what you posted.  We all do.  Even Blind Freddy can see you're wrong.

BTW.  You brought up the 1942 Battle of LA.  Is this latest post your way of saying that your little disk of notes is woefully inadequate; and, you'd prefer to get back on topic?

Amusing that you would post such a thing when you have yet to address the radar contacts on that craft as it approached the California coastline and where eventually the craft reversed its course and headed back from where it came. And remember, I had already posted the photo was analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object and look what you posed.

Narrative: Section 1. Ground-visual UFO Observations (2:15-3:44) | The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 (minotb52ufo.com)

 

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

Amusing that you would post such a thing when you have yet to address the radar contacts on that craft as it approached the California coastline and where eventually the craft reversed its course and headed back from where it came. And remember, I had already posted the photo was analyzed and enhanced to bring out additional details on the object and look what you posed.

Narrative: Section 1. Ground-visual UFO Observations (2:15-3:44) | The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 (minotb52ufo.com)

 

You posted a copy of the heavily retouched photo.  That's the post I raised the question of relevance about.

Again, If you don't want to discuss the heavily retouched version, why did you introduce intonthis topic?

Your actions raise the apprehension that you want to spread BS.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You posted a copy of the heavily retouched photo.  A

No points. Now, in reference to the object that was captured in those searchlights, how far from Los Angeles did radar first detect the object?

A. 60 miles

B. 120 miles

C. None of the Above.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skyeagle409 said:

No points. Now, in reference to the object that was captured in those searchlights, how far from Los Angeles did radar first detect the object?

A. 60 miles

B. 120 miles

C. None of the Above.

To focus on the discussion, and perhaps end this line of enquiry - you are saying there was no point to posting that photo? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

To focus on the discussion, and perhaps end this line of enquiry - you are saying there was no point to posting that photo? 

The focus is the craft that is lite up by those searchlights.

Link to comment
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.