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 -
makaya325

such nonsense

193 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

What difference does that make since the information can be ascertained from other sources not connected directly to the internet? Go to your local library and pull out some microfilm if it doesn't have back-issues of the publication I've presented.

If its so sound and so infallible link it out of a scientific journal that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists with credentials, other than "Hi im some guy on the internet that believes in UFOs this is my website with proof"

How much time do you have?

UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature

Aeronautics and Astronautics

"AIAA Committee looks at the UFO Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, December, 1968, p. 12. Golomb S., "The Wheel in the Middle of the Air," Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Sounding Board, August 1966, p. 16. Letters to AIAA Journal, Nov. 1966, p. 6. Early and Marsh on "Saucer Doctrine". Friedman, S.T., "Flying Saucers are Real ", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Feb., 1968, p. 16. Friedman, S.T., "UFO reports available," Aeronautics and Astronautics, April, 1971, p. 4. Kuettner, J. P., "A New Start on the Whole UFO ProbIem?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, November 1973. McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 5, August 1967, pp. 19-20. McDonald, James E., "UFO Encounter I - Air Force Observations of an Unidentified Flying Object in the South-Central U.S., July 17, 1957", in Aeronautics and Astronautics, July, 1971, pp. 66-70. Sturrock, Peter. A., "UFO Reports from AIAA Members", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 12, pp. 60-64, 1974. Thayer, Gordon D., "UFO encounter II - The Lakenheath England, Radar-Visual UFO case, August 13-14, 1956", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sept., 1971, pp. 60-64. AIAA UFO Subcommittee,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

1956 LAKENHEATH UFO INCIDENT

On the night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.

It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.).

A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]."

linked-image

B-36 Peacemaker

The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.

At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).

Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]." At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.

Soon after, radars at Bentwaters and RAF Lakenheath reported a stationary object 20-25 miles (32-40 km.) southwest of the latter base. It suddenly began moving north at 400 to 600 mph (650 to 1,000 km./hr.), but "there was no build-up to this speed - it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." It made several abrupt changes of direction without appearing to slow for its turns.

Around 11:30 p.m., the RAF launched a deHavilland Venom jet interceptor, from RAF Waterbeach. According to the U.S. Air Force UFO report:

"Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate. At 13 miles [20 km.] west he reported loss of target and white light. Lakenheath (radar) vectored him to a target 10 miles [16 km.] east of Lakenheath and pilot advised (that) target was on his radar and was 'locking on.' Pilot then reported he had lost target on his radar.

"Lakenheath GCA reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. Radar requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Continue:

"UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 8. No. 11, November 1970, P. 49-51. Carlson J. B., and Sturrock, Peter A., "Stanford Workshop on Extraterrestrial Civilization: Opening a New Scientific Dialog", Aeronautics and Astronautics, June, 1975, pp. 64-65. "Our Extraterrestrial Heritage: From UFO's to Space Colonies", Proceedings of the Joint Symposium, Los Angeles, Calif., January 28, Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and World Futures Society, 1978.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

McDonald, James E., "Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Hynek, J. Allen, "Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Baker, R. M. L., "Motion Pictures of UFO's", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

American Meteorological Society

McDonald, James E., "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns", Paper Presented at the 14th Radar Meteorology Conference, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 17-20, 1970. Boston: American Meteorological Society (1970), pp. 456-463.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10. Earley, G., "UFOs: An Historical Perspective", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-18, 1967, pp. 1-15, session 10.

American Journal of Physics

Page, Thornton, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," American Journal of Physics, October, 1969.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist

Hynek, A., "The Condon Report and UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, April 1969, pp. 39-42. Munday, J., "On the UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Dec 1967, pp. 40-41. Condon, Edward U., "UFOs I have Loved and Lost", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Vol 15, No. 10.

Applied Optics

Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand", Applied Optics, Vol 18, No. 15, 2527-28, 1979. Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand -- Author's Reply to Comments", Applied Optics, 19, 1745, 1980. Icarus McDonald, James E., "The Condon Report", Icarus, Vol 11, #3, November 1969, pp. 443-447.

Astronomy

Dickinson, Terence, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", Astronomy, December 1974, 32 pages.

Industrial Research

"UFO's probably exist", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 1971, p. 75. "Did UFOs Go Away?", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 1979, p. 191. "Good Chance UFOs Exist in Some Form", Industrial Research and Development, July 1979, p. 139.

Scientific Research

"Libel Suit May Develop From UFO Hassle", Scientific Research, may 13, 1968, pp. 11-12. Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "The UFO Report: Condon Study Falls Short", Scientific Research, April 14, 1969, p. 41.

Popular Science

Armagnac, Alden P., "Condon Report on UFOs: Should You Believe It?", Popular Science, April 1969, pp. 72-76.

Engineering Opportunities

Hersey, Irwin, "UFOs and the Condon Report: Are All the Answers in?", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, pp. 39-42. McDonald, James E.,"The Dissenting View", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, p. 33.

Science and Mechanics

Mallan, Loyd, "The Condon Report: Fact or Fiction?", Science and Mechanics, 40.5, May 1969, pp. 38-40, 86,88,90.

Technology Review

Hynek, J. Allen, "The UFO Phenomenon: Laugh, Laugh, Study, Study", Technology Review, Vol. 83, No. 7 July 1981, pp. 50-58.

Nature

Ridpath, Ian, "Interview with J. Allen Hynek", Nature, Vol. 251, October 1974, p. 369.

I might add that J. Allen Hynek was once a UFO skeptic, that is, until he conducted his investigation.

J. ALLEN HYNEK

Astronomy professor at Ohio State University, who went on to become Associate Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (1956), and chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University (1960). He is best remembered, however, for his involvement with research into unidentified flying objects. This began in 1949 when he was invited by the US Air Force to become the astronomical consultant to Project Grudge, based at nearby Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson AFB), in Dayton. He continued in this position with the subsequent and much longer Project Blue Book, gradually shifting over the years from a position of extreme skepticism to one in which he believed that UFOs represent "an aspect or domain of the natural world not yet explored by science." In 1973, four years after the cancellation of Project Blue Book, Hynek founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), based in Chicago. He also served as technical advisor to the producers of the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Hynek, J., "Unusual Aerial Phenomena", Journal of the Optical Society of America, April 1953.

Science

Powers, William, "Analysis of UFO Reports", Science, Vol. 156, 7 April, 1967. Hynek, Allen J., "UFO's Merit Scientific Study", Science, October 21, 1966. Markowitz, W.,"The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", Science, Vol. 157, 1967. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground", Science, Vol. 161, July 26, 1968, pp. 339-42. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits from Outer Space", Science, Vol. 163, January 17, 1969, pp. 260-62.

About that Condon Study.

Flying Saucer Fiasco

Look Magazine, May, 14, 1968

By John G. Fuller

linked-image

The extraordinary story of the half-million-dollar "trick" to make Americans believe the Condon committee was conducting an objective investigation

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
you still linking data off websites like....

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

[bTW the one scientist who comes up in the Belgian incident consistently (Professor Meessen) couldn't get his work publish in a legitimate scientific journal upon review, which is why he wrote a book. He is also shunned by his peers now, Guess that makes 1 credible scientist!

I would like to add:

Science in Default:Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting

General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects

James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

The University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona

December 27, 1969

"No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been carried out during the entire 22 years that have now passed since the first extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of 1947."

"Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of public concern, only quite superficial examinations of the steadily growing body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses have been conducted in this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all evidence now points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar characteristics throughout the world."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

Eh, read my sig below.

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

This links to a page, that makes a claim, supported by a 1952 article from Life magazine. The page does not display a link to the original article, nor does it have a pdf copy. 2 of the pages other magazine links are broken. The article has obviously been retyped as the format is fit to html and is typed not scanned. If you think this is providing evidence then I suggest you use your Airforce college money to attend a community college and take a comparative

studies class with a subject on scientific evidence.

You can't get the original document because its in the hands of the C.I.A and government.

Your not guna go to them and say ' Can see the documents to the reports of a ufo sighting over texas?

They would day ' No and if you ask again we through you to jail' Thats how secret it is. but the magazine has photocopies of the documents not the 'original'

And btw Skyeagle allready knows this stuff due to his work With the airforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
This links to a page, that makes a claim, supported by a 1952 article from Life magazine. The page does not display a link to the original article, nor does it have a pdf copy. 2 of the pages other magazine links are broken. The article has obviously been retyped as the format is fit to html and is typed not scanned. If you think this is providing evidence then I suggest you use your Airforce college money to attend a community college and take a comparative

studies class with a subject on scientific evidence.

You can't get the original document because its in the hands of the C.I.A and government.

Your not guna go to them and say ' Can see the documents to the reports of a ufo sighting over texas?

They would day ' No and if you ask again we through you to jail' Thats how secret it is. but the magazine has photocopies of the documents not the 'original'

And btw Skyeagle allready knows this stuff due to his work With the airforce.

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
What difference does that make since the information can be ascertained from other sources not connected directly to the internet? Go to your local library and pull out some microfilm if it doesn't have back-issues of the publication I've presented.

How much time do you have?

UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature

Aeronautics and Astronautics

"AIAA Committee looks at the UFO Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, December, 1968, p. 12. Golomb S., "The Wheel in the Middle of the Air," Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Sounding Board, August 1966, p. 16. Letters to AIAA Journal, Nov. 1966, p. 6. Early and Marsh on "Saucer Doctrine". Friedman, S.T., "Flying Saucers are Real ", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Feb., 1968, p. 16. Friedman, S.T., "UFO reports available," Aeronautics and Astronautics, April, 1971, p. 4. Kuettner, J. P., "A New Start on the Whole UFO ProbIem?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, November 1973. McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 5, August 1967, pp. 19-20. McDonald, James E., "UFO Encounter I - Air Force Observations of an Unidentified Flying Object in the South-Central U.S., July 17, 1957", in Aeronautics and Astronautics, July, 1971, pp. 66-70. Sturrock, Peter. A., "UFO Reports from AIAA Members", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 12, pp. 60-64, 1974. Thayer, Gordon D., "UFO encounter II - The Lakenheath England, Radar-Visual UFO case, August 13-14, 1956", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sept., 1971, pp. 60-64. AIAA UFO Subcommittee,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

1956 LAKENHEATH UFO INCIDENT

On the night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.

It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.).

A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]."

linked-image

B-36 Peacemaker

The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.

At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).

Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]." At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.

Soon after, radars at Bentwaters and RAF Lakenheath reported a stationary object 20-25 miles (32-40 km.) southwest of the latter base. It suddenly began moving north at 400 to 600 mph (650 to 1,000 km./hr.), but "there was no build-up to this speed - it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." It made several abrupt changes of direction without appearing to slow for its turns.

Around 11:30 p.m., the RAF launched a deHavilland Venom jet interceptor, from RAF Waterbeach. According to the U.S. Air Force UFO report:

"Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate. At 13 miles [20 km.] west he reported loss of target and white light. Lakenheath (radar) vectored him to a target 10 miles [16 km.] east of Lakenheath and pilot advised (that) target was on his radar and was 'locking on.' Pilot then reported he had lost target on his radar.

"Lakenheath GCA reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. Radar requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Continue:

"UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 8. No. 11, November 1970, P. 49-51. Carlson J. B., and Sturrock, Peter A., "Stanford Workshop on Extraterrestrial Civilization: Opening a New Scientific Dialog", Aeronautics and Astronautics, June, 1975, pp. 64-65. "Our Extraterrestrial Heritage: From UFO's to Space Colonies", Proceedings of the Joint Symposium, Los Angeles, Calif., January 28, Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and World Futures Society, 1978.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

McDonald, James E., "Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Hynek, J. Allen, "Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969. Baker, R. M. L., "Motion Pictures of UFO's", American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, December 27, 1969.

American Meteorological Society

McDonald, James E., "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns", Paper Presented at the 14th Radar Meteorology Conference, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 17-20, 1970. Boston: American Meteorological Society (1970), pp. 456-463.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10. Earley, G., "UFOs: An Historical Perspective", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-18, 1967, pp. 1-15, session 10.

American Journal of Physics

Page, Thornton, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," American Journal of Physics, October, 1969.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist

Hynek, A., "The Condon Report and UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, April 1969, pp. 39-42. Munday, J., "On the UFOs", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Dec 1967, pp. 40-41. Condon, Edward U., "UFOs I have Loved and Lost", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Vol 15, No. 10.

Applied Optics

Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand", Applied Optics, Vol 18, No. 15, 2527-28, 1979. Maccabee, Bruce, "Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen Off the Coast of New Zealand -- Author's Reply to Comments", Applied Optics, 19, 1745, 1980. Icarus McDonald, James E., "The Condon Report", Icarus, Vol 11, #3, November 1969, pp. 443-447.

Astronomy

Dickinson, Terence, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", Astronomy, December 1974, 32 pages.

Industrial Research

"UFO's probably exist", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 1971, p. 75. "Did UFOs Go Away?", Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 1979, p. 191. "Good Chance UFOs Exist in Some Form", Industrial Research and Development, July 1979, p. 139.

Scientific Research

"Libel Suit May Develop From UFO Hassle", Scientific Research, may 13, 1968, pp. 11-12. Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "The UFO Report: Condon Study Falls Short", Scientific Research, April 14, 1969, p. 41.

Popular Science

Armagnac, Alden P., "Condon Report on UFOs: Should You Believe It?", Popular Science, April 1969, pp. 72-76.

Engineering Opportunities

Hersey, Irwin, "UFOs and the Condon Report: Are All the Answers in?", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, pp. 39-42. McDonald, James E.,"The Dissenting View", Engineering Opportunities, April 1969, p. 33.

Science and Mechanics

Mallan, Loyd, "The Condon Report: Fact or Fiction?", Science and Mechanics, 40.5, May 1969, pp. 38-40, 86,88,90.

Technology Review

Hynek, J. Allen, "The UFO Phenomenon: Laugh, Laugh, Study, Study", Technology Review, Vol. 83, No. 7 July 1981, pp. 50-58.

Nature

Ridpath, Ian, "Interview with J. Allen Hynek", Nature, Vol. 251, October 1974, p. 369.

I might add that J. Allen Hynek was once a UFO skeptic, that is, until he conducted his investigation.

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Hynek, J., "Unusual Aerial Phenomena", Journal of the Optical Society of America, April 1953.

Science

Powers, William, "Analysis of UFO Reports", Science, Vol. 156, 7 April, 1967. Hynek, Allen J., "UFO's Merit Scientific Study", Science, October 21, 1966. Markowitz, W.,"The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", Science, Vol. 157, 1967. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground", Science, Vol. 161, July 26, 1968, pp. 339-42. Boffey, Philip M.,"UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits from Outer Space", Science, Vol. 163, January 17, 1969, pp. 260-62.

About that Condon Study.

Flying Saucer Fiasco

Look Magazine, May, 14, 1968

By John G. Fuller

linked-image

The extraordinary story of the half-million-dollar "trick" to make Americans believe the Condon committee was conducting an objective investigation

Lol sorry I wasn't very specific,I see you complied a nice list of journals from the 60's and 70's. Also here is the important part, since I was not specific in my explanation, I was referring to peer-reviewed article. Interviews, Personal Statements, Letters to the readers, etc is not peer-reviewed and is just as slushy science as pulling data off a website called savethealiens.com.

Edit: You also dont see a slight coincidence in the publish dates? They happen to coincide with UFO fever? I guess if these are ETs visiting us and scientist know about it then you should have no trouble find many a peer-reviewed article from todays major journals.

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
Lol

This is what I found amusing.

camlax @ Jul 11 2007, 05:34 AM)

Now the second part of the graph shows, after the peak altitude they go into a steep dive, HELLO. during this dive they achieve their top speed of around 1000k or mach 1.5. They weren't flying straight. It looks like they were taking advantage of gravity and after burners to reach this speed. Nothing short of anything we did here on earth during the 1990s

Yet, the data shows that within one second, from 4 to 5 seconds after lock-on, the UFO accelerated from 150 knots to 560 knots, and it wasn't in a dive, it was in level flight.

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000

05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

To sum it up, the UFO was in level flight at this point, which meant that the UFO could not have been a jet aircraft in full afterburner in a dive and no aircraft is capable of accelerating from 150 knots to 560 knots in one second in a dive anyway, much less in level flight. You can accelerate a jet fighter off an aircraft carrier at 180 knots in 2 seconds or so, but you can't accelerate that same aircraft up to 410 knots in one second, even in full afterburner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makaya325

the whole phenomona leads to nowhere. millions of people have seen the "ufos" but cant get a clear shot of it or even material. its a load of bs and to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense would be plausible. any skeptic here would agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
tell me, why do some of you guys think that on our small planet, all of these reptilians, greys, and ufos could all fit here without being caught, or leaving behind evidence.

They do leave behind evidence and the ocean is a very big place other than the universe.

its hard to beleive that their is not one single shred of evidence for these "anomalies".

Did you really think that no evidence has ever been left behind?

linked-image

how in the hell could 6 billion not find a single proof that these things are really here.

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

(Sturrock Panel): Ground Traces

Peter Sturrock / Sturrock Panel Report / Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

Summary:

A few of the reports that have been investigated by GEPAN/SEPRA show ground traces that may be associated with the events reported by witnesses. Similar cases have been documented by other investigators. Phillips (1975) prepared a catalog of 561 such cases as a CUFOS report.

ET's Calling Card?

linked-image

The Alleged Crash at Aurora (Texas): April 17, 1897

Physical Analyses in ten cases of unexplained aerial objects. J. Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3

"It was investigated again in 1973 by William Case, a journalist with the Dallas Time-Herald, and by personnel from the McDonnell Douglas aircraft company. While the 1897 story reported that the airship was "built of an unknown metal resembling somewhat a mixture of aluminum and silver," the fragment found by Case and his co-workers was determined to consist of aluminum (83%) and zinc (about 16%) with possible traces of manganese and copper. The combination could originate with numerous common aluminum alloys, according to the McDonnell scientists, but not prior to 1908."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...lee_phys/4.html

THE LONNIE ZAMORA CASE

Socorro, New Mexico, April 24, 1964

"While chasing a speeding car at about 5:45 p.m., Officer Lonnie Zamora of the Socorro Police Department heard a roar and saw flame in the sky to the southwest. Thinking that a dynamite shack in that area must have blown up, he abandoned the chase and went to investigate. As he approached the arroyo on unpaved roads he saw an elliptical object resting on legs in a gully. A red "insignia" or emblem was visible on the side toward him, and standing near it were two humanoid figures."

"An FBI report dated May 8, 1964, notes that Zamora has been personally known for about 5 years and is "well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy." The report also confirms the scorched foliage and the imprints, noting that, "Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line [and each] pushed some earth to the far side."

"Two years after the sighting, Major Hector Quintanilla, Air Force Chief of Project Blue Book at the time of the sighting, confided to intelligence specialists in a classified CIA publication that the Socorro case remained "puzzling." With the help of many other agencies, he had conducted an exhaustive check of military activities looking for an explanation, but none could be found."

They definitely didn't find Easter eggs at this UFO landing site in New Mexico!

linked-image

linked-image

... with sattelites. im sure we would have found these alien spaceships.

NORAD Tracks Fast Walker UFOs

MAY 5, 1984, an alert was triggered at the North America Air Defense Command. Moving at 22,000 miles per hour, it was heading toward Earth and had been determined to NOT be incoming ballistic missles, or any other type of conventionally explainable object. Once tracked, it was code-named "Fast Walker".

Aerojet engineers, the folks who built the DSP satellite have confirmed that their DSP satellites track 2-3 "Fast Walkers" per month. One of the engineers is releasing information that proves DSP satellites have been tracking UFOs for years. In fact, it was a DSP satellite that confirmed this UFO incident.

http://www.nicap.org/walker.htm

FAST WALKER VIDEO

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram

...if we could find a 50 foot squid in a huge ocean, then we shouldve found a giant spaceship in the sky

THE FANTASTIC FLIGHT OF JAL FLIGHT 1628

UFO as large as two aircraft carriers.

http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
They do leave behind evidence and the ocean is a very big place other than the universe.

Did you really think that no evidence has ever been left behind?

linked-image

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

(Sturrock Panel): Ground Traces

Peter Sturrock / Sturrock Panel Report / Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

Summary:

A few of the reports that have been investigated by GEPAN/SEPRA show ground traces that may be associated with the events reported by witnesses. Similar cases have been documented by other investigators. Phillips (1975) prepared a catalog of 561 such cases as a CUFOS report.

ET's Calling Card?

linked-image

The Alleged Crash at Aurora (Texas): April 17, 1897

Physical Analyses in ten cases of unexplained aerial objects. J. Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3

"It was investigated again in 1973 by William Case, a journalist with the Dallas Time-Herald, and by personnel from the McDonnell Douglas aircraft company. While the 1897 story reported that the airship was "built of an unknown metal resembling somewhat a mixture of aluminum and silver," the fragment found by Case and his co-workers was determined to consist of aluminum (83%) and zinc (about 16%) with possible traces of manganese and copper. The combination could originate with numerous common aluminum alloys, according to the McDonnell scientists, but not prior to 1908."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...lee_phys/4.html

THE LONNIE ZAMORA CASE

Socorro, New Mexico, April 24, 1964

"While chasing a speeding car at about 5:45 p.m., Officer Lonnie Zamora of the Socorro Police Department heard a roar and saw flame in the sky to the southwest. Thinking that a dynamite shack in that area must have blown up, he abandoned the chase and went to investigate. As he approached the arroyo on unpaved roads he saw an elliptical object resting on legs in a gully. A red "insignia" or emblem was visible on the side toward him, and standing near it were two humanoid figures."

"An FBI report dated May 8, 1964, notes that Zamora has been personally known for about 5 years and is "well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy." The report also confirms the scorched foliage and the imprints, noting that, "Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line [and each] pushed some earth to the far side."

"Two years after the sighting, Major Hector Quintanilla, Air Force Chief of Project Blue Book at the time of the sighting, confided to intelligence specialists in a classified CIA publication that the Socorro case remained "puzzling." With the help of many other agencies, he had conducted an exhaustive check of military activities looking for an explanation, but none could be found."

They definitely didn't find Easter eggs at this UFO landing site in New Mexico!

linked-image

linked-image

NORAD Tracks Fast Walker UFOs

MAY 5, 1984, an alert was triggered at the North America Air Defense Command. Moving at 22,000 miles per hour, it was heading toward Earth and had been determined to NOT be incoming ballistic missles, or any other type of conventionally explainable object. Once tracked, it was code-named "Fast Walker".

Aerojet engineers, the folks who built the DSP satellite have confirmed that their DSP satellites track 2-3 "Fast Walkers" per month. One of the engineers is releasing information that proves DSP satellites have been tracking UFOs for years. In fact, it was a DSP satellite that confirmed this UFO incident.

http://www.nicap.org/walker.htm

FAST WALKER VIDEO

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram

THE FANTASTIC FLIGHT OF JAL FLIGHT 1628

UFO as large as two aircraft carriers.

http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

Sky I think at this point its obvious that you can not pull credible evidence, the most scientific things you can come up with are opinion pieces in journals from the 50's, 60's and 70's. If I were to discover how to use fusion as a power source, you can bet it would be independently reviewed by numerous scientists and scientific organizations around the world, it would be head line news from Malaysia to Alaska. It would be opened up to scrutiny from the scientific community and if found to be true would published in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

Solid evidence for a history changing event, such as the conformation of extraterrestrials on earth would not be confined to media speculation, opinionated pieces, conspiracy theorist memorandums and hushed believer circles on the internet.

The idea of extraterrestrials among us is very romantic, as is belief in an after life, spirits, ghosts, telekinesis, faith healing and an Apatosaurus living in the Congo. However romantic and majestic these ideas seem, they have one thing common. To proclaim their existence as an absolute truth, you have to at some point, step away from science, from the scientific method, from clear and concise evidence and profess supernatural explanations. As history dictates, super natural explanations have never accurately answered an occurrence in the universe.

I once wrote an opinion piece on what I consider to be the greatest danger facing American society today. No it was not global warming, I believe the lack of scientific understanding is the danger. In an ever technologically advancing world there is no place for those that can not keep up. Your apparent disregard for the request of credible evidence only deepens my fear of this danger. To see someone walk away from the American military, with what sounds on your accord, a firm understanding of science not be able to tell the difference between speculation and fact, between theory and law, between opinion and truth only saddens me.

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
linked-image

The Alleged Crash at Aurora (Texas): April 17, 1897

Physical Analyses in ten cases of unexplained aerial objects. J. Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3

"It was investigated again in 1973 by William Case, a journalist with the Dallas Time-Herald, and by personnel from the McDonnell Douglas aircraft company. While the 1897 story reported that the airship was "built of an unknown metal resembling somewhat a mixture of aluminum and silver," the fragment found by Case and his co-workers was determined to consist of aluminum (83%) and zinc (about 16%) with possible traces of manganese and copper. The combination could originate with numerous common aluminum alloys, according to the McDonnell scientists, but not prior to 1908."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...lee_phys/4.html

Just a future FYI in case you are ever arguing this with someone in the future who asks for scientific proof. I don't ever recall a representative from The prestigious Society for Scientific Exploration on supernatural phenomenon at a National Academy of Sciences proceeding.

Just a helpful thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psych!
This is a long link, But worth reading i think this is the closest thing we have to proof of alien's.......

http://members.tripod.com/~adriandvir/implants.htm

http://gordii0.tripod.com/ALIEN_IMPLANTS.HTM

So now aliens are telepathic and giving implants to people but the guy never once described what they looked like. Was he afraid that the aliens would read his mind cause he did the report anyway. If you want to be credible to the public you have to give details or I consider it Bull****. Honestly an alien medical team sounds a little fishy but I would have to give it to them with the pictures of the implants which are supposively from another world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Solid evidence for a history changing event, such as the conformation of extraterrestrials on earth would not be confined to media speculation, opinionated pieces, conspiracy theorist memorandums and hushed believer circles on the internet.

I allready told you cant get the orignal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
Sky I think at this point its obvious that you can not pull credible evidence, the most scientific things you can come up with are opinion pieces in journals from the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Camlax, that is just another attribute of a debunker that I have seen over the years. Now, all of a sudden, scientific journals are irrelevant AFTER you had mentioned the LACK of UFOs in scientific journals. It seems that you think that people on this board were born yesterday. Note the dates.

Note the DATES!

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the

Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York

September 29 � October 4, 1997

Director

P.A. Sturrock

Scientific Steering Committee

T. E. Holzer, R. Jahn, D. E. Pritchard, H. E. Puthoff, C. R. Tolbert, and Y. Terzian

Scientific Review Panel

V. R. Eshleman (Co-Chair), T. E. Holzer (Co-Chair), J. R. Jokipii, F. Louange, H. J. Melosh, J. J. Papike, G. Reitz, C. R. Tolbert, and B. Veyret

Investigators

R. F. Haines, I. von Ludwiger, M. Rodeghier, J. F. Schuessler, E. Strand, M. D. Swords, J. F. Vallee, and J-J. Velasco

Moderators

D. E. Pritchard and H. E. Puthoff

Photograph of workshop participants

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Brandenburg, John E., DiPietro, Vincent, and Molenaar, Gregory, "The Cydonian Hypothesis", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1-27.

Bounais, M., "Traumatology as a Potent Tool for Identifying Actual Stresses Elicted by Unidentified Sources: Evidence for Plant Metabolic Disorders in Correlation with a UFO landing", Journal of scientific exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1-18.

Bramley, William, "Can the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Vallee Hypotheses Be Reconciled?", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1992, pp. 3-11.

Guerin, Pierre, "A Scientific Analysis of Four Photographs of a Flying Disk Near Lac Chauvet", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1994, pp. 447-469.

Haines, Richard and Vallee, Jacques, "Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989, pp. 113-131.

Haines, Richard and Vallee, Jacques, "Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica: New Evidence", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 71-74.

Haines, Richard, "Analysis of a UFO Photograph", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1987, pp. 129-147.

Henry, Richard C., "UFOs and NASA", Journal of Scientific Exploration,

Vol 2, No. 2, 1988, pp. 93-142.

Maccabee, Bruce, "Analysis of the Images of a Cluster of periodically Flashing Lights Filmed Off the Coast of New Zealand", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 149-190, 1987.

Maccabee, Bruce, "Strong Magnetic Field Detected Following a Sighting of an Unidentified Flying Object", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1994, pp. 347-365.

Sturrock, Peter, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project", Vol 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 75-100.

Sturrock, Peter, "Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 1;2;3, 1994, pp. 1-45;153-195;309-346.

Swords, Michael, "Could Extraterrestrial Intelligences be Expected to Breathe Our Air?", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1995,

pp. 381-392.

Velasco, Jean-Jacques, "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO case", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 27-48.

Vallee, Jacques, "Return to Trans-en-Provence", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 19-26.

Vallee, Jacques, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp. 105-117.

Vallee, Jacques, "Towards a Second-Degree Extraterrestrial Theory of UFOs: A Response to Dr. Wood and Prof. Bozhich", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 113-120.

Wood, R., "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is Not That Bad", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 103-112

]

Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

Part 1: General Debunkery

<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

<> Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

Your apparent disregard for the request of credible evidence only deepens my fear of this danger. To see someone walk away from the American military, with what sounds on your accord, a firm understanding of science not be able to tell the difference between speculation and fact, between theory and law, between opinion and truth only saddens me.

Military experience is how I am able to ascertain the facts and to determine when somesone is on a debunking campaign.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
Just a future FYI in case you are ever arguing this with someone in the future who asks for scientific proof. I don't ever recall a representative from The prestigious proceeding.

Just a helpful thought

As a scientist, don't you think it is prudent to learn the facts relating to the evidence of a case before going on a debunking roll? So what you are now saying, all of those scientific journals, which have published UFO case files in their journals, are no longer relevant.

Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery

<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

Note the DATES!

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the

Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York

September 29 � October 4, 1997

Director

P.A. Sturrock

Scientific Steering Committee

T. E. Holzer, R. Jahn, D. E. Pritchard, H. E. Puthoff, C. R. Tolbert, and Y. Terzian

Scientific Review Panel

V. R. Eshleman (Co-Chair), T. E. Holzer (Co-Chair), J. R. Jokipii, F. Louange, H. J. Melosh, J. J. Papike, G. Reitz, C. R. Tolbert, and B. Veyret

Investigators

R. F. Haines, I. von Ludwiger, M. Rodeghier, J. F. Schuessler, E. Strand, M. D. Swords, J. F. Vallee, and J-J. Velasco

Moderators

D. E. Pritchard and H. E. Puthoff

Photograph of workshop participants

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karl 12
the whole phenomona leads to nowhere. millions of people have seen the "ufos" but cant get a clear shot of it or even material. its a load of bs and to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense would be plausible. any skeptic here would agree

With respect, you seem to show a great deal of ignorance about the UFO subject;theres a great many reasons why many prominent ,credible scientists and academics treat the subject seriously.

Expert eyewitness testimony,radar/sonar corellation,over 20,000 declassified government documents...

Perhaps the reason you think as you do is due to watching hysterically bias,prejudice,unscientific debunker 'documentaries' instead of objectively and impartialy researching the subject for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Thank you karl for at least telling him that he cant proove that they don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jouster
tell me, why do some of you guys think that on our small planet, all of these reptilians, greys, and ufos could all fit here without being caught, or leaving behind evidence. its hard to beleive that their is not one single shred of evidence for these "anomalies". how in the hell could 6 billion not find a single proof that these things are really here. with sattelites. im sure we would have found these alien spaceships. their are plenty reasons not to believe that aliens are here because our earth is not big enough to hide such things, we have already discovered 99 percent of all big species on earth, and if we could find a 50 foot squid in a huge ocean, then we shouldve found a giant spaceship in the sky

The thing is that they aren't going to come so close to our planet if they even did come because would you like it if some big ship came and hovered over your planet. they would proboly know that we have defenses and would't want to mess with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shush_rules
if we could find a 50 foot squid in a huge ocean, then we shouldve found a giant spaceship in the sky

I don't understand the connection here.

Are you attempting to compare a giant squid who swims in the ocean and feeds....to beings capable of making vehicles with the ability to travel across galaxies?

I mean that's really it right there isn't it? The fact that u have to back up an argument about ufo detection with refrences to giant squids.

Surely if we can find a squid we can find a race of creatures with the potential ability to travel at the speed of light and have an array of anti-detection devices.

I think its rather safe to assume that seeing as i can find my pants in the morning that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby
I don't understand the connection here.

Are you attempting to compare a giant squid who swims in the ocean and feeds....to beings capable of making vehicles with the ability to travel across galaxies?

I mean that's really it right there isn't it? The fact that u have to back up an argument about ufo detection with refrences to giant squids.

Surely if we can find a squid we can find a race of creatures with the potential ability to travel at the speed of light and have an array of anti-detection devices.

I think its rather safe to assume that seeing as i can find my pants in the morning that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist

I think the point is it's hard to imagine we can't detect in some manner or form something as monumental as an Alien spacecraft. Yet we constantly hear hillbilly in-bred goobers talking about them and their cattle being abducted and anally probed. It just seems absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
I think the point is it's hard to imagine we can't detect in some manner or form something as monumental as an Alien spacecraft.

Who says that we can't detect alien spacecraft?

The DSP Satellite and the FastWalker Incident - Discovery Channel

Here we look at the 1980s. From their vantage point 22,300 miles above the earth's surface, a fleet of supersecret military satellites monitors our planet for missile launches and nuclear detonations. On a clear day, these satellites can see forever, so it's no surprise when they also pick up erupting volcanos, oil-well fires, incoming meteors, sunlight reflections off the ocean, and a host of other heat sources, including those that still remain unexplained. Since 1985, all this data has been beamed down in near real-time to the U.S. Space Command's Missile Warning Center, operating from within Cheyenne Mountain, near Colorado Springs. The purpose: coordinating satellite-based early warning systems for the army, navy, air force, and marines.

Whether harmless or threatening, the information has always been a guarded national secret. But suddenly, in 1993, with the Cold War over, the Defense Department agreed to declassify some satellite information not related to intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches and nuclear events. Since then, scientists from astronomers to geophysicists have rushed to get their hands on this motherlode of data. Among researchers hoping to glean some truth from the declassified data are UFOlogists, long frustrated by the critics' classic retort: "If UFOs are real, why haven't they been detected by our satellites?" Well, some UFO researchers are now saying, they have been.

Just in case you missed it before, here it is again.

NORAD TRACKS FAST WALKER UFOS

"The Air Force NORAD facility, it has been convincingly reported,

observes these "fastwalkers" from its subterranean facility deep

inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, and tracks a rough average

of 500 of them (UFOs for the uninitiated) each YEAR as they

enter the Earth's atmosphere from deep space, maneuver around,

and then leave again.

This is not a fiction. It corroborates a similar report from

AeroJet General engineers Lee Graham and Ron Regehr,

who have revealed to the well respected UFO researcher

Don Ecker documents indicating that AeroJet's DSP satellite

system, alone, routinely detects UFOs flying into Earth's

atmosphere from deep space... up to two to three times per

month."

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper
Yet we constantly hear hillbilly in-bred goobers talking about them and their cattle being abducted and anally probed.

You know how far back that one comment has sent any credibility you've tried to establish? In that one sentence you've shown you've done little to no actual research other than maybe running off to skeptic sites and wikipedia.

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morrison1976
the whole phenomona leads to nowhere. millions of people have seen the "ufos" but cant get a clear shot of it or even material. its a load of bs and to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense would be plausible. any skeptic here would agree

Well, this post says it all really. You will find that many skeptics on here still find that some ufo's are unexplained. They dont all jump on the de-bunking wagon. Many ufo cases are still unexplained, so to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense, is someone who is so closed minded and obsessed with trying to prove that every ufo case can be explained, even when that means coming up with some rather stupid explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby
You know how far back that one comment has sent any credibility you've tried to establish? In that one sentence you've shown you've done little to no actual research other than maybe running off to skeptic sites and wikipedia.

I think your wrong. Personally, I believe there is plenty of evidence that is quite compelling, and there are good arguments for Alien visitation, including the Roswell incident and the case at the military installation in England, just to name two of the most obvious. But just when it gets compelling some loon tosses out a picture of this Dr. Greer guy and a "rod", and the collective community of non-convinced people (note I didn't say non-believers) rolls their eyes.

What credibility have I lost? Thinking the disclosure project is just a cash cow makes me un-credible? How about the disclosure project producing squat and a picture of Dr. Greer with a friggin "rod"? How credible is that? "RODS"! :rolleyes:

Add to that radar data from technology developed in the 1940's! The case Sky so often refers to in his cut and paste jobs IS compelling, no doubt! It made the national news at the time! I agree! You know what else made the national news scene? Satanic faces in the flames of the Twin Towers on 9/11! Another eye-roller right there!

I am not a scientist. I get my info from the media, (websites, TV, books, periodicals) like most anyone else. I've read debunking books, believer books, and scientific analysis from both private and government sources, including a few most people don't get to see. And the bottom line is, we still don't know the truth, NONE of us, and people like Greer and his "rod" pictures get us NO CLOSER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Well, this post says it all really. You will find that many skeptics on here still find that some ufo's are unexplained. They dont all jump on the de-bunking wagon. Many ufo cases are still unexplained, so to dismiss this phenomona as nonsense, is someone who is so closed minded and obsessed with trying to prove that every ufo case can be explained, even when that means coming up with some rather stupid explanations.

The problem is automatically equating something that someone somewhere saw to a craft piloted by extraterrestrials, there is no evidence for this and to make that assumption you must make a huge leap of faith. I admit, people see things all the time. This does not mean its extraterrestrial ships that have crossed the vast gulfs of space to spy on us. For What Ill venture was thousands of years people thought Aura Borealis was from the gods, it was just not understood what it is.

Also I have admitted here numerous times there is a possibility some of these cases could be UFOs, however slight. The problem is the lack of evidence and the inability of people to distinguish credible evidence and faith based evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
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.