Now I'm not saying that they are aliens, I am speaking of unidentified flying objects, which could be anything.

I myself have now seen two. One when I was younger. I was looking up at a powerline at night and I thought I saw two reflective squirl eyes looking back at me. Then, it turned a little and realized it was actually 3 bright spots in a triangle that were slowly turning far above the powerline (moved my head to check) and traveling in a south easterly direction. I then lost the object in the trees a few seconds later.

The second time was last year. I was standing outside my house smoking a cig (I am quit now thanks) and I looked up and thought I saw a satellite. I watched it for a little while and suddenly it completed a 45 degree turn (losing all momentum in the original direction of travel) and zipped off and I lost it. From what I know of physics this ranges from impossible to highly improbable at the speeds you would need to be at in space to be visiblibly moving like this.

Not sure what I saw, but both were weird for sure! :D (personally I think time travelers are more likely then aliens visiting earth and not telling everyone but who knows)

yes, I thought it was a heron, but it may have been a crane. Is it considered identified simply because it was a bird?

don't even wanna talk about what I've seen while on acid

yes, I thought it was a heron, but it may have been a crane. Is it considered identified simply because it was a bird?

don't even wanna talk about what I've seen while on acid

Kinda yeah :D

oh, then no. My husband says he has, but he believes in Bigfoot, so....

don't even wanna talk about what I've seen while on acid

You could probably start an entire new forum with that!

My brother and I saw something moving very slowly across the starfield, slowly accelerating and getting brighter, then winking out.
I've seen satellites zipping over, and satellites don't maneuver.

Also seemed higher than a satellite, but almost impossible to really tell, of course.

My brother and I saw something moving very slowly across the starfield, slowly accelerating and getting brighter, then winking out.
I've seen satellites zipping over, and satellites don't maneuver.

Also seemed higher than a satellite, but almost impossible to really tell, of course.

That screams meteor to me, I've actually seen one like that where it gets brighter as it gets deeper in the atmosphere. However, the one I saw exploded spectacularly! (it was so bright the sun could have come out for a split second, like close by lightning)

I saw a big black sphere floating near my house. It looked like a bin bag full of air, but more spherical. So I actually thought "Bin bag!" And decided that even though it looked strange, I should just go with a reasonable explanation. But then it stopped floating around, and stopped in an exact still position. It was a bit windy, so I was a bit confused. I thought "Give it a couple of minutes, and think of it as a "Bin bag".. But it was stationary for about 2 hours, and when I say stationary, the wind was not even moving it a fraction. It was sort of locked in place. Even on a wire the wind would have rocked it a bit.

@PP --

Let me guess, your video camera and other recording devices weren't working were they?

Yes.

Edit: that's an answer to "Anyone ever seen a UFO?", not Arioch's post.

The interesting thing about it being stationary would not look accurate on a shaky camera. You would see it moving all over the place. Anyway, I'm not interested in proving it. I'm not a big UFO fan.

@PP --

To be fair, you're not really interested in proving anything you claim, which is why you're a woomeister.

@PP --

To be fair, you're not really interested in proving anything you claim, which is why you're a woomeister.

To be fair, I only studied the Universe so that I could know what everything was. Proving it to others wasn't on my original agenda.

To be fair, I only studied the Universe so that I could know what everything was.
But you found that studying was too hard and decided to make it up instead.

If you actually see an object in the air wouldn't that then become an "identified" flying object? :shrug:

"Look up there, it looks like a big bag floating." So even with that statement it is telling us that the object was identified and what it looked like. Just because we don't know what that "bag" was made from doesn't make it a UFO.

"Look up there, it looks like a big bag floating." So even with that statement it is telling us that the object was identified and what it looked like.
What it looks like is not necessarily what it is. Therefore it hasn't, strictly speaking, been identified.

What it looks like is not necessarily what it is. Therefore it hasn't, strictly speaking, been identified.

So if a person looks at a cloud and can't tell what it is made of would it then be a UFO because of your statement then?

So if a person looks at a cloud and can't tell what it is made of would it then be a UFO because of your statement then?
If they don't actually identify it as a cloud then it's not been identified:

i·den·ti·fy (-dnt-f)
v. i·den·ti·fied, i·den·ti·fy·ing, i·den·ti·fies
v.tr.
1. To establish the identity of.

Well yeah...duh...in 1982 a stealth fighter spotted would be a UFO.

Why is it acceptable to deny that there are things in the sky and space that humans have no knowledge of?..No scientist would ever claim that every living thing on earth or in the sea has been identified.

I don't know what it was ? Meteor probably. Big ball of fire streaking across a long bank of transom windows . It made me jump up of the couch in a hot flash . I also saw a streak in the air driving to work in the bay area one time . I thought what the fuck is that , Are we being attacked by Russia ? It turned out it was a test missile as before I got to the job it was announced on the radio not to be alarmed and then went into the explanation as to what we all saw . It streaked and then blew up .

My Mother and my Grandfather saw a u.f.o. while boating on Lake Memphremagog in Vermont were my grandpa had a lake house . It was disk like from what they have told us . They don't like to talk about it even with us close family members . They never went public either . They dismissed it as an anomaly.

I was just looking at pictures from when we was kids on the lake . I didn't know what the pictures were as some how my wife got them on here phone . I thought it was people water skiing. She told me were it was and then I realized it was my brother , cousin and my sister laying in the water . My brother and cousin look like they are walking on water . The lake is like a foot and a half deep for about 1 miles seems like . When we went fishing you had to push the boat out something like a mile before it was deep enough to start the out board motor , So yeah way out from the shore makes it look like your walking on water . Especially when you got a kids head as the only thing poking out of the water right next to the walkers

That must have been crazy, I would have liked to see that!

Well yeah...duh...in 1982 a stealth fighter spotted would be a UFO.

Exactly,.... we know there are 'Black' projects that create secret aircraft, the U2, SR71, and 'Stealth' aircraft all operated secretly for some time, before being unveiled, and I'm guessing they are secret while they are cutting edge, so that implies there's a next generation of secret craft in service already, and who knows what that is capable of.

Interestingly, I read an article about the HRV2 (Hypersonic Re-entry Vehicle) as it was lost in flight recently, and this appears to be follow on technology from the 'Dynasoar' which was cancelled in 1963. Cancelled, or maybe the project just went black, and continued,.... who knows, but the USA may well have manned space capability it just doesn't admit to. As these hypersonic vehicles use various manoeuvres to skip on the atmosphere to maintain altitude, and perform tight turns, zig zagging to lose speed, some of their flight patterns match what people report as UFOs. Also, highly agile unmanned drones could be responsible, ... we've seen a few oddites in the sky at one of our favourite surf locations, which is near a 'disused' missile testing range, and just happens to be near the sea, so flights can take off and land without going over land, or therefore any populated area, away from prying eyes, well, except for a bunch of surfers who hang out at the beach after dark.

As these hypersonic vehicles use various manoeuvres to skip on the atmosphere to maintain altitude, and perform tight turns, zig zagging to lose speed, some of their flight patterns match what people report as UFOs.


citations please

I'm trying to upload a picture to ask what it is but a security code is said to be missing. :shrug:

Anyways I have a couple of photo's of ufo's would like to share.

I've seen what appeared stars when I was in my late teens, during a meteor shower. My friends and I looked at it for a while before they seperated and disappeared horizontally across the sky in a blink of an eye.

I've seen a ufo in my mid twenties while driving with a friend home from work. This has been reported too. It shook the car around causing it to jerk like bad gas. Than the dashboard lights went out, and across this field nearby boeing area, a big round light bigger than a apartment complex was hovering for a moment and than disappeared into the ground across the field. Our vehicle than went to running fine and the dashboard lights went back on.

I don't know what it was ? Meteor probably. Big ball of fire streaking across a long bank of transom windows . It made me jump up of the couch in a hot flash . I also saw a streak in the air driving to work in the bay area one time . I thought what the fuck is that , Are we being attacked by Russia ? It turned out it was a test missile as before I got to the job it was announced on the radio not to be alarmed and then went into the explanation as to what we all saw . It streaked and then blew up .

My Mother and my Grandfather saw a u.f.o. while boating on Lake Memphremagog in Vermont were my grandpa had a lake house . It was disk like from what they have told us . They don't like to talk about it even with us close family members . They never went public either . They dismissed it as an anomaly.

I was just looking at pictures from when we was kids on the lake . I didn't know what the pictures were as some how my wife got them on here phone . I thought it was people water skiing. She told me were it was and then I realized it was my brother , cousin and my sister laying in the water . My brother and cousin look like they are walking on water . The lake is like a foot and a half deep for about 1 miles seems like . When we went fishing you had to push the boat out something like a mile before it was deep enough to start the out board motor , So yeah way out from the shore makes it look like your walking on water . Especially when you got a kids head as the only thing poking out of the water right next to the walkers

I've been watching alot of youtube videos of what appears meteors, but once they break the atmosphere they start to manuver as intelligent crafts.

I was a witness to four ufo's during a meteor shower. Maybe there is something to this.

Wouldn't our craft landing on another planet appear like a meteor?

Here is the photo! i'm trying to delete this because down loaded photo finally but wrong photograph. oops.

I hope got the photo right. heheh.

I hope got the photo right. heheh.

Did you see the object before or after you took the pictures? I ask because in the photo you get no sense of scale/distance so if you saw it after it was possibly a bug flying in front of the lens.

I did not notice it until after the picture was taken. I was thinking it was possibly a large raven. I too can not tell spacial perception is off.

I've got a problem with my other photo. It was taken during fireworks. Its with 3 lights in a triangle. But the photograph has been erased off the computer and unfortunately is not in the recyle bin either. :(

:confused:

It's a bird landing in a tree. It has the legs forward, that's how they land.

I zoomed in on it and I can almost make out black wings so I think your right!:D I was taking pictures of the clouds and color formations. I love taking pictures of clouds. It made for a beutiful picture. I have some with darker red and purples from the same day.

really home made anti-gravity platform instructions.
platform is not use energy.unique information.i sell only 1 month.information include 2 pages.first page cost:300$
second page cost 4000$.
it is your chance made anti-gravity platform!!!
russian language.(secret archive)
morotex@rambler.ru

really home made anti-gravity platform instructions.
platform is not use energy.unique information.i sell only 1 month.information include 2 pages.first page cost:300$
second page cost 4000$.
it is your chance made anti-gravity platform!!!
russian language.(secret archive)
morotex@rambler.ru

I've got one, it's called a toilet and 20 tins of beans.

I suspect the next 'Blackbird' to come to surface will be "Aurora".

Yes I saw one, but as a skeptic, I'm open to it being swamp gas reflecting off a full moon or some other such shit.

That screams meteor to me, I've actually seen one like that where it gets brighter as it gets deeper in the atmosphere. However, the one I saw exploded spectacularly! (it was so bright the sun could have come out for a split second, like close by lightning)

No, it was up there and visible for about three minutes. In that time it tracked across an area a little bigger than that contained within the "dipper" portion of the big dipper. About four to five times the apparent width of the full moon when up in the air and off the horizon.

Meteors fall into the atmosphere fast, the time between light up and burnout is probably less than a second, even on the big ones.. Yeah, there's spectacular ones, and I have not seen those, but if that's what I was looking at, I've seen lots of smaller ones and would recognize it. The big ones are blobby and they get brighter. One time I actually saw smoke-it got close enough to me and to the ground that I saw the puff of space dust. Another one I saw must have had boron in it, it was a giant green fireball.

I've actually worked outdoors at night and got to see a meteor shower, also seen plenty of random meteors and satellites...also the ISS going over, also spent many years living under a major international airport landing vector.

I'm used to seeing stuff at night. This was something I never saw before or since.

No, it was up there and visible for about three minutes. In that time it tracked across an area a little bigger than that contained within the "dipper" portion of the big dipper. About four to five times the apparent width of the full moon when up in the air and off the horizon.

Meteors fall into the atmosphere fast, the time between light up and burnout is probably less than a second, even on the big ones.. Yeah, there's spectacular ones, and I have not seen those, but if that's what I was looking at, I've seen lots of smaller ones and would recognize it. The big ones are blobby and they get brighter. One time I actually saw smoke-it got close enough to me and to the ground that I saw the puff of space dust. Another one I saw must have had boron in it, it was a giant green fireball.

I've actually worked outdoors at night and got to see a meteor shower, also seen plenty of random meteors and satellites...also the ISS going over, also spent many years living under a major international airport landing vector.

I'm used to seeing stuff at night. This was something I never saw before or since.

Awesome, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, just offering a possible explanation. I personally believe SOMETHING is going on but what it is I will not speculate on (another tread maybe I just want this not to turn into an argument).

Anyone else? There are over 400 active members and they say about 6% of the population has seen one and 24 people have not come forward yet so..... Let's hear um (read um lol) people!

Yes I saw one, but as a skeptic, I'm open to it being swamp gas reflecting off a full moon or some other such shit.

I am also a skeptic (about it being aliens), that is why I call what I saw a UFO and I am careful not to say it was aliens, it's just unidentified IDK what it was.

Awesome, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, just offering a possible explanation. I personally believe SOMETHING is going on but what it is I will not speculate on (another tread maybe I just want this not to turn into an argument).

Anyone else? There are over 400 active members and they say about 6% of the population has seen one and 24 people have not come forward yet so..... Let's hear um (read um lol) people!

6% of the population has seen an unidentified flying object.. an object flying that they can't see properly. 90% of the population has seen something that they can't see properly on a Saturday night, and taken it home.

6% of the population has seen an unidentified flying object.. an object flying that they can't see properly. 90% of the population has seen something that they can't see properly on a Saturday night, and taken it home.

Only 90%? :D I thought it would be over 100% (cuz lots of us have done this more than once).

Bump for some love

I think alot of ufo's can be man made. However what I've witnessed was not even remotely possible. Unless we have the ability to move our crafts through matter!:eek:

Also there are alot of pilots that of course are aware of air crafts and their abilities that have had run in's with ufo and uso's.:cool:

I think in time we will learn how to draw energy out of surroundings to supply crafts of all kinds with alternative energy or even anti energy.

Its not a guess or theoretic on my part, but know how. Its happening and being done as we speak. Reports from professionals of air deviation through out the years have witnessed the impossible flights of unknown objects.

That means we have enough credible evidence from eye witness testimony that allows us to keep the discussion on not if anyone is really seeing anything, but what are these things. where do they come from!

it wasn't just a mistaken id of a missile, when police helicoptors are being chased and on ground patrol helps collabroate what is being witnessed from below.

or when a commercial air pilot witnesses a large craft and its also on the radar.

I would say that is alot of substancial evidence that we have crafts flying in our surroundings that do not belong to us.:p

Its not a guess or theoretic on my part
Yes it is.


Reports from professionals of air deviation through out the years have witnessed the impossible flights of unknown objects.
WTF is a "professional of air deviation"?


That means we have enough credible evidence from eye witness testimony
No we don't.


I would say that is alot of substancial evidence that we have crafts flying in our surroundings that do not belong to us.:p
You would. But then again you've displayed little ability to think rationally.

I think we will have to wait until the professionals of gravity displacement submit their report to know for sure.

Yes it is.


WTF is a "professional of air deviation"?


No we don't.


You would. But then again you've displayed little ability to think rationally.


Dyw, quit being lazy.. at least refute the fragment if you can't quote an entire sentence in context.

Refute?
What has he posted that's coherent enough to refute?
I'm still wondering what the hell a "professional of air deviation" is. Someone who spots breezes in the wrong place for a living? Who notifies the government that that volume of air should be over Ireland by now and it's running late?

Dywyddyr, please don't chase people away :d. I really want to read some stories. It's interesting to find others that have the same kind of experiences.

Chase people away?
Have you read post #10?

6% of the population has seen an unidentified flying object.. an object flying that they can't see properly. 90% of the population has seen something that they can't see properly on a Saturday night, and taken it home.

:p Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder.

@whynot --


However what I've witnessed was not even remotely possible. Unless we have the ability to move our crafts through matter!

Reports from professionals of air deviation through out the years have witnessed the impossible flights of unknown objects.

Experiences such as these are what is medically known as a "hallucination". Everyone, regardless of age, gender, or race, is susceptible to hallucinations, it's a fact of our biology.


That means we have enough credible evidence from eye witness testimony that allows us to keep the discussion on not if anyone is really seeing anything, but what are these things. where do they come from!

The best explanation is that such people are hallucinating. These objects are coming from inside our own brains.


I would say that is alot of substancial evidence that we have crafts flying in our surroundings that do not belong to us.

And I'd say that that's about the least parsimonious explanation I've ever heard.

@chimpkin --

LOL! Nice pun, I like it.

Being as I have the absolutely real theory of everything, I have some idea of what a UFO is capable of, how it would need to work, what types of propulsion are possible. What shapes would seem the most likely to accommodate certain types of engines.

Firstly.. Invisibility. It is very likely that a Alien technology UFO would be invisible. There are two reasons. First.. a negative mass ship wouldn't collide so much with matter at the speeds required, and negative mass is invisible to us. Second just to cloak from observation. That's what we would do if we got to the position to visit an alien world.

There aren't that many ways to achieve faster than light travel. You can create a particle torch which shines out Dark Flow. Then get the ship into the Dark Flow.. speed up the dark flow, and accelerate whilst at the same time accelerate the Dark Flow. Best not to point the beam at your destination though, best to point it at a nearby moon, because you will make a crater.

Another way is to create a massive bow shock. This is really destructive, but compresses time, and shortens the distance to where you want to go.

And the last way that I can think of is not so fast, but generates unlimited energy, but is quite dangerous. You have to fold space time, but not shorten it like a worm hole, because I don't seem to have figured that out. But fold it to create an engine. You will get a vortex that propels you.. but you are limited to mass tolerances. So nowhere near the speed of light. A UFO using this technology would stand out a mile, because it would look peculiar, with a big disc of plasma in the middle.

Some combinations of these.. switch positive mass on behind you, switch negative mass in front of you, and you will be in some sort of space tidal wave. This is anti-gravity really.. you have switched gravity around, but also strengthened it.

Can't really think of any more ways apart from the obvious solar sails etc.

We can't do any of the UFO versions until science gets a grip on negative mass. And I haven't come up with a way to see it either. But the two slit experiment, neutrinos, quantum tubes of silicon, and Quantum Gold stand out for me as the most likely candidates to come up with the answers. Mirrors too.. possibly.

Being as I have the absolutely real theory of everything
No, you don't.
And the rest of your post is even more nonsensical drivel.

@Dywyddyr --

Do you hear a dripping noise? I think that it might be my brain leaking out of my ears.

No, you don't.
And the rest of your post is even more nonsensical drivel.

I just created my DaVinci helicopter, and aircraft. Those are real, but not yet.

Being as I have the absolutely real theory of everything, I have some idea of what a UFO is capable of, how it would need to work, what types of propulsion are possible. What shapes would seem the most likely to accommodate certain types of engines.



Having a theory of everything would not entail you knowing everything.
That would be impossible for a human brain.
So, your boast is fairly empty.

As for myself,
Even though I have NO theory of everything,
I have some idea of what a UFO would be capable of, how it would need to work,
what types of propulsion are possible.
What shapes would seem the most likely to accommodate certain types of engines.

Not a lot of idea, but some idea, same as you.

I just created my DaVinci helicopter, and aircraft. Those are real, but not yet.

Would they be anything like Da Vinci's versions?

Having a theory of everything would not entail you knowing everything.
That would be impossible for a human brain.
So, your boast is fairly empty.

As for myself,
Even though I have NO theory of everything,
I have some idea of what a UFO would be capable of, how it would need to work,
what types of propulsion are possible.
What shapes would seem the most likely to accommodate certain types of engines.

Not a lot of idea, but some idea, same as you.

TOE doesn't mean know everything, it means have a system to know everything when you want to know it. That's what I do. If I feel that something sounds fun to learn about, I add it to my agenda. My theory then solves it.. sometimes it takes a week or more for me to figure out which parts of my system the theory is using. Err well, action at a distance took 3 years.. so not always easy.


Would they be anything like Da Vinci's versions?

No.. they are the UFO ideas that I posted.. the equivalent.

TOE doesn't mean know everything, it means have a system to know everything when you want to know it.
No it doesn't.


That's what I do.
Nope. What you is come up with inane drivel and convince yourself that it has meaning.


If I feel that something sounds fun to learn about, I add it to my agenda.
Hmm, judging by the evidence you've never found anything to be fun, since you consistently fail to learn.


My theory then solves it.
Nope.


sometimes it takes a week or more for me to figure out which parts of my system the theory is using.
You mean "convince yourself you have a clue".


No.. they are the UFO ideas that I posted.. the equivalent.
Not really.

No it doesn't.


Nope. What you is come up with inane drivel and convince yourself that it has meaning.


Hmm, judging by the evidence you've never found anything to be fun, since you consistently fail to learn.


Nope.


You mean "convince yourself you have a clue".


Not really.

Actually when you say me, you actually mean you. Psychology is to mirror oneself against another, and if you can't make sense of it yourself apply that the other is not making sense. But in your case you have not heard my full theory, so your guesses are that I am not brighter than you. Which is self belief, and you don't want your self belief broken. But to me, your whole brain is broken.

Actually when you say me, you actually mean you.
No. My command of English is considerably better than that.

No. My command of English is considerably better than that.

Which actually proves my point.

Which actually proves my point.
Nope.

Re your edit:

Psychology is to mirror oneself against another
Um, no it's not.


and if you can't make sense of it yourself apply that the other is not making sense.
Close. What actually occurs is that if the other isn't making then I conclude that they aren't making sense.


But in your case you have not heard my full theory
Because not only do you not have a "full theory" you don't have any theory.


so your guesses are that I am not brighter than you
Really? Is that a supposition on your part?


But to me, your whole brain is broken.
Hmm, would this be a case of declaring me to be not brighter than you, in order to preserve your self-belief?

Nope.

Re your edit:

Um, no it's not.


Close. What actually occurs is that if the other isn't making then I conclude that they aren't making sense.


Because not only do you not have a "full theory" you don't have any theory.


Really? Is that a supposition on your part?


Hmm, would this be a case of declaring me to be not brighter than you, in order to preserve your self-belief?

No, my self-belief is based on myself predicting most of the new physics over the last 7 years before they were discovered. My self belief is based on me understanding things that I have not been taught by anyone. And my belief of myself being smarter than you is based on the fact that everything you say is just a negative response to what somebody else has written. You are trying to be right by laws of averages that with all of these theories being different that you can say wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and no way can all of the theories be right, so you win 99% of the time. But then I came along, the 1% lose situation. By habit, you don't know how to handle the 1% lose. By lack of thought you forgot that the Theory Of Everything would always end up in Pseudo-science. There is no way that it could end up in science, because science was never correct enough to handle it. The Big Bang, and singularity, and relativity would automatically push the theory in here. Then the lack of maths, because nature isn't based on maths would cause people a headache. So it would always end up in here, and you would always eventually lose by just saying wrong, wrong, wrong.

No, my self-belief is based on myself predicting most of the new physics over the last 7 years before they were discovered.
But you haven't done that.


My self belief is based on me understanding things that I have not been taught by anyone.
Nor that. You simply convince yourself that your "explanation" is correct.


And my belief of myself being smarter than you is based on the fact that everything you say is just a negative response to what somebody else has written.
Also incorrect.


You are trying to be right by laws of averages that with all of these theories being different that you can say wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and no way can all of the theories be right, so you win 99% of the time. But then I came along, the 1% lose situation.
:roflmao:


By lack of thought you forgot that the Theory Of Everything would always end up in Pseudo-science. There is no way that it could end up in science, because science was never correct enough to handle it.
Not quite correct. It ended up in Pseudoscience because it contains no science. And you forget that you have admitted that you are ignorant of science.

But you haven't done that.


Nor that. You simply convince yourself that your "explanation" is correct.


Also incorrect.


:roflmao:


Not quite correct. It ended up in Pseudoscience because it contains no science. And you forget that you have admitted that you are ignorant of science.

Lol.. I like the way you have switched from wrong to incorrect, not quite correct.. cause, and effect. You are a cause, and effect machine. That's why you need cause (scientific teaching) to get the effect (I know everything now). Try doing something for yourself, start science from scratch. Don't allow anything in science that you can't account for.. Gravity is an unknown in science, yet science allows it to be the hinge of their entire theory. Not allowed in my science... Pinchoism is the new word for true science. And you have to be a lot more thorough.

Chase people away?
Have you read post #10?

My apologies, what did you see, would you care to describe it?

Lol.. I like the way you have switched from wrong to incorrect, not quite correct.
Wrong = incorrect. The "not quite correct" was sarcasm. :rolleyes:


Pinchoism is the new word for true science.
Nope.
It's not even science.

I love cranks and woo woo's a great deal. But, because I lack the knowledge to distinguish some wild claims from legitimate science, it's nice to have guys like Dywyddyr to stomp on them as they appear. I have to google a lot of things I read on this site so that I can better understand the topic and sometimes I find that it's just beyond my scope of comprehension (ie: any post by Rpenner). I have spent hours and hours reading up on a variety of subjects I find in threads from here. I have learned a lot and am thankful. I do get a little "pissy" with people that make grand statements and then do not back them up. I'm forced to look a subject up only to find out that the person is full of it. I find that a waste of my time. James R., Arioch, Dywyddyr, AlexG, Tiassa, MacGyver and others help thickies like me a great deal by steering us in the right direction to find information (real information).

My apologies, what did you see, would you care to describe it?
The first one was in the sixties. Simply a white light in the sky (clear early autumn night) that followed a triangular (sharp-cornered) path. No idea of altitude, no idea of size. The triangle sides were longer than thumb to outstretched little finger when the arm was held up. Witnessed by myself and a school friend. Not a clue as to what it could have been.

The second was best described as dual-rotating nebulous spirals of light (think of two large-pitch springs slightly interlocked). Apparent distance was a couple of hundred yards and apparent size was 50 feet high and a few yards in diameter. On closer investigation (i.e. scrambling over a tall fence and trekking through a muddy field) I soon established that my size and distance estimates were off considerably (I must have covered the best part of a mile trying to get closer). This was a frosty November night, low cloud. It was still there after a couple of hours (a friend and his wife saw it when I pointed it out to them later).
This, disappointingly, turned out to be a reflection of searchlights from the low cloud - searchlights on because it was part of the light show for the opening of a new shopping centre about 5 miles further than I'd gone!
It was reported the following day in the local newspaper that the police had received approx. 4,000 UFO calls. And, despite the newspaper report the police were still getting back-dated "UFO sighting claims" a week later.

I love cranks and woo woo's a great deal. But, because I lack the knowledge to distinguish some wild claims from legitimate science, it's nice to have guys like Dywyddyr to stomp on them as they appear. I have to google a lot of things I read on this site so that I can better understand the topic and sometimes I find that it's just beyond my scope of comprehension (ie: any post by Rpenner). I have spent hours and hours reading up on a variety of subjects I find in threads from here. I have learned a lot and am thankful. I do get a little "pissy" with people that make grand statements and then do not back them up. I'm forced to look a subject up only to find out that the person is full of it. I find that a waste of my time. James R., Arioch, Dywyddyr, AlexG, Tiassa, MacGyver and others help thickies like me a great deal by steering us in the right direction to find information (real information).
Thanks Ellis. It's nice to find someone who appreciates us.
PS, don't EVER listen to MacGyver! He'll say anything if you promise him enough beer. ;)

Wrong = incorrect. The "not quite correct" was sarcasm. :rolleyes:


Nope.
It's not even science.

There's no hope for you if your reply to break free of human teachings is to use sarcasm, a human form of humour passed on mainly in science forums, and losing rounds of arguments. You'll be using the pink fairies quote next.

Oh great, another thread trolled to death.

I've only seen UFOs in dreams.
And not for awhile.

Perhaps earthling science taught them something they didn't already comprehend.
They all ran off to check out dark flow.
Perhaps a wild goose chase.
Those earthlings are geniuses.

I havn't seen a UFO but the evidence that they exist is overwhelming

I havn't seen a UFO but the evidence that they exist is overwhelming

What evidence have you seen that's overwhelming? I haven't. I'm open to view any credible links you can provide.

What evidence have you seen that's overwhelming? I haven't. I'm open to view any credible links you can provide.

just read books , youtube

I have done this for many yrs

specifically , Jim Marrs , recently , book very ,very good

I have seen paintings with sky craft , etc. just watch any program , read books on the subject , with critisism

the eventuality of the reality of UFO's will come about in the end

they have been around for thousands of yrs

a good start would be ( now that I think about it ) the history of the Sumerians

fascinating , really

Yes it is.


WTF is a "professional of air deviation"?


No we don't.


You would. But then again you've displayed little ability to think rationally.

haven't you seen the news? air avation is all about helping people land and not crash into each other. their the ones falling asleep lately in the towers.

your ignorence is obvious so i really can not take you as being very intelligent with these remarks and i know your very smart. so why the insults? you know i have good reasons to say their is sound evidence for ufo's. to say there isn't shows how irrational your behaving. im not just your book reader hearsayer. i've eyewitnessed ufo's and not like you who was easily fooled some time back. eyewitnesses were with me and they can not explain what it was.

I watch those who like to prove things as fake or how things appear to be ufo's. it helps me to keep ground perspective on what it could be.

Just because I've seen something or say something is happening that has been deemed impossible, does not prove me to be irrational. not when i bring others into purposely question that very thing. Im at least trying to share and offer evidence here.

that is what people seek. and if you just automatically assume im irrational than thats fine. I don't blame you. but if you become the problem in allowing me to share. than i can promise you this. if there is even the slightest chance that I can do so than I hope the chance to be given to do so. and if not than everyone loses here.

that is why I am still here.

just read books , youtube

I have done this for many yrs

specifically , Jim Marrs , recently , book very ,very good

I have seen paintings with sky craft , etc. just watch any program , read books on the subject , with critisism

the eventuality of the reality of UFO's will come about in the end

they have been around for thousands of yrs

a good start would be ( now that I think about it ) the history of the Sumerians

fascinating , really


UFO nuts enthusists have a remarkably low standard for what they will call 'evidence'. They are eager to believe just about anything and everything.

UFO's are the modern equivalent of the headless horseman.
Ghosts.

UFO's are the modern equivalent of the headless horseman.
Ghosts.

Not really. An alien UFO can exist. A NASA spaceship flying past an inhabited planet for some reason is an Alien UFO. Maybe a ghost can exist I don't know, we have a lot of invisible material out there. I've heard of a Dark Galaxy. Actually makes a lot of sense.

Many many people saw headless horsemen in the past.
Some of them very intelligent people.
Can they all have been mistaken?

Many many people saw headless horsemen in the past.
Some of them very intelligent people.
Can they all have been mistaken?

Yeah the average person makes things up. But I say, allow the scientific, natural versions to exist.

just read books , youtube

I have done this for many yrs

specifically , Jim Marrs , recently , book very ,very good

I have seen paintings with sky craft , etc. just watch any program , read books on the subject , with critisism

the eventuality of the reality of UFO's will come about in the end

they have been around for thousands of yrs

a good start would be ( now that I think about it ) the history of the Sumerians

fascinating , really

I've been interested in UFO's since I was a kid and have looked at numerous videos that claim to be of UFO's. I've followed the Disclosure Project with some interest. I've read about "supposed" reference to aliens or spacecraft in different ancient societies. However, I have yet to read or watch ANYTHING that isn't just an interesting theory. I like tuning into Ancient Aliens because I'm a sci-fi fan, not because I think it provides convincing evidence. I'll check out that Jim Marrs book you suggest but, for me, any evidence I have witnessed regarding UFO's/aliens is simply entertainment.

With home CGI now it is going to be impossible to tell the real from the fakes anyway. I could make a video better than 90% on the internet using free software.

specifically , Jim Marrs , recently , book very ,very good
Jim Marrs is a paranoid crank.


haven't you seen the news? air avation is all about helping people land and not crash into each other. their the ones falling asleep lately in the towers.
Pardon? So by "professionals of air deviation" you mean "air traffic controllers"?


your ignorence is obvious
And then you accuse me of ignorance. :rolleyes:


so i really can not take you as being very intelligent with these remarks and i know your very smart. so why the insults?
It's quite simple: you come across as decidedly not very intelligent and not smart.


you know i have good reasons to say their is sound evidence for ufo's. to say there isn't shows how irrational your behaving.
No you don't.


im not just your book reader hearsayer. i've eyewitnessed ufo's and not like you who was easily fooled some time back. eyewitnesses were with me and they can not explain what it was.
Maybe you should go back and read my posts.

Many many people saw headless horsemen in the past.
Some of them very intelligent people.
Can they all have been mistaken?

But lets add the "ease of falsity" to the event. How difficult is it to strap a dummy to a horse, and send the horse running aimlessly through the country-side?
How easy is it to fake a convincing crop circle? Not too easy.

How easy is it to fake a convincing crop circle? Not too easy.
Yet it's been done many times.

Yet it's been done many times.
One could equally say the same about a genuine alien-created one that is convincing as well. You are weaving your belief system into your reply?

Update: I changed that into a harmless question.

One could equally say the same about a genuine alien-created one that is convincing as well.
One could. If there actually was such a thing.


You are weaving your belief system into your reply?
My belief system? Maybe you haven't bothered checking on crop circles and the facts about them.

One could. If there actually was such a thing.


My belief system? Maybe you haven't bothered checking on crop circles and the facts about them.

Not all of them.
I still carry doubts about the validity of an "entirely-hoaxed anomaly".

Crop circles are guesswork. What would make you think that they are real? Maybe some unknown science in the patterns? Maybe a warning? The technology that makes them could also make them in other materials.. sand.. clouds, poppy fields, somebody's lawn. I think that the proof would come from seeing the shapes in more incredible places.

@Keith --

Is it possible that extraterrestrials are responsible for crop circles? Yes, though one must ask how likely that is. We know that it is possible for as few as one person, albeit a rather industrious person, to fake even incredibly complex and large crop circles. We know that there are thousands of people across the entire planet who've admitted to creating crop circles(usually for fun or to gain popularity after they confess). We also know that humans like to follow trends and also have a startling tendency to read too much into things. Given all of these facts it follows that the best explanation for all current and past crop circles is human origin as a hoax.

Many many people saw headless horsemen in the past.
Some of them very intelligent people.
Can they all have been mistaken?

Actually, fucking with someone (i.e. putting my head into my coat to make someone think I didn't have a head) is totally something I would do. Intelligent people can totally be trolled.

In fact, it would not surprise me if UFO's were a big troll by some military with advance aircraft (ours or Russia most likely).

The length of time the anomaly is allowed to perpetuate within a region of ancient human civilization, coupled with the amount of effort extended to perpetuate it (example: moving blue stones and digging encircled areas to mark them). Are not the few circles of plausible interest not in these regions specifically?

The length of time the anomaly is allowed to perpetuate within a region of ancient human civilization, coupled with the amount of effort extended to perpetuate it (example: moving blue stones and digging encircled areas to mark them). Are not the few circles of plausible interest not in these regions specifically?

What specific incident are you referring too?

What specific incident are you referring too?I think my examples clearly elaborate one region. There are such specific regions throughout the world.

The length of time the anomaly is allowed to perpetuate within a region of ancient human civilization, coupled with the amount of effort extended to perpetuate it (example: moving blue stones and digging encircled areas to mark them). Are not the few circles of plausible interest not in these regions specifically?

What about a star chart, we are here, we sent you a signal you can pick this signal up at these coordinates, monitor this area and you will hear the signal? Instead we get something that would take just as long to accomplish. Travel to our planet, and fold some wheat.

I think my examples clearly elaborate one region.
Your "examples" clearly don't.


There are such specific regions throughout the world.
How can your example "clearly elaborate ONE region" if there are, per your own words, "such specific regions throughout the world"? :shrug:

What about a star chart, we are here, we sent you a signal you can pick this signal up at these coordinates, monitor this area and you will hear the signal? Instead we get something that would take just as long to accomplish. Travel to our planet, and fold some wheat.

We've exhausted the subject so you want to change it.
Any geologic probing of a planet for future deep core mining would begin with surface markers left for later extraction/entry locations. Who cares about your wheat?

We've exhausted the subject so you want to change it.
Any geologic probing of a planet for future deep core mining would begin with surface markers left for later extraction/entry locations. Who cares about your wheat?

So the mining is always best under a wheat field? :D

Well, that made me laugh anyway.

How can your example "clearly elaborate ONE region" if there are, per your own words, "such specific regions throughout the world"?
We've exhausted the subject so you want to change it
Why would one example be expected to elaborate on all possible examples ?

We've exhausted the subject so you want to change it
False. I'm simply replying to YOUR post.


Why would one example be expected to elaborate on all possible examples ?
Then why did YOU refer to one example?


Maybe you have learning difficulties. If so please let me know and I'll do my best to compensate.

Maybe you have learning difficulties. If so please let me know and I'll do my best to compensate.

I think you would retreat to a posture of compensating, regardless of my learning state.

I think you would retreat to a posture of compensating, regardless of my learning state.
And apparently you don't know what you're talking about, let alone me.

Here is a site with the best ufo pictures.http://ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html

I know about balls of lightening and energy releases from the ground, but this thing we saw in 1992 by renton boeing area was not just some ball of lightening. Our car was being jerked around, than the dash board lights went out, and than we saw the big ball of light just hovering in the air above an apartment complex. It flew in a horizontal path with a speed unknown to air crafts and we had some jets fly over here that broke the sound so I know. This made no sound and it disappeared into the ground.

I think to just explain it away as something other than a ufo is silly. if you can match this object up with something known, than please by all means give me an answer and stop calling me unintelligent because I seek answers for what I have personally experienced.

Here is another site with ufo evidence and scientific study.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

Here is another site with ufo evidence and scientific study.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
Yeah.
And have you bothered (or even considered) checking the validity of those claims? Have you looked at both sides of the stories?

Or would you rather just take that site's word for it?

Here is a site with the best ufo pictures.http://ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html

I know about balls of lightening and energy releases from the ground, but this thing we saw in 1992 by renton boeing area was not just some ball of lightening. Our car was being jerked around, than the dash board lights went out, and than we saw the big ball of light just hovering in the air above an apartment complex. It flew in a horizontal path with a speed unknown to air crafts and we had some jets fly over here that broke the sound so I know. This made no sound and it disappeared into the ground.

I think to just explain it away as something other than a ufo is silly. if you can match this object up with something known, than please by all means give me an answer and stop calling me unintelligent because I seek answers for what I have personally experienced.

You ruined your validity with a photo of a bird, and then some UFO sites. This story sounds like close encounters. If UFO's are real they wouldn't all just come to you. You see too many, you don't identify them very well.

You ruined your validity with a photo of a bird, and then some UFO sites. This story sounds like close encounters. If UFO's are real they wouldn't all just come to you. You see too many, you don't identify them very well.

Well the first ufo sighting I had was in my teens swimming during a meteor shower. and no these were no meteors. I did not have a camera than.

Also my other sighting was heading home after a hard days work and over an 8 hr shift. Tired but sober. and completely aware this was something out of the usual. I did not have a camera than either.

When I took the picture I shared it was because it appeared in the picture and it looked like a possible ufo. I was very open to peoples opinon of this picture.

My other picture is lossed so sorry I could not post it here.

If another one happens to come around and I capture it on camera or film than I will happily share it.

if it sounds like a movie its because most movies are based on actual facts from eye witnesses like myself. so that is what actually takes place with ufo's and people who run into them. that just verifies that what I went through was real.

Why I have seen two sighting in my many years, I do not know. But I have seen several cryptics too. so go figure. and yes these were with eyewitnesses too. :rolleyes:

maybe they like to pick on us unintelligent ones . lol!:D

UFO's are the modern equivalent of the headless horseman.
Ghosts.

I don't know how equivalent it is to ufo's but very good accounts of something unusual. It could be like the village movie. People use scare tactics to control the people from going places late at night for reasons that could be its felt unsafe. Used to control children.

Or it could be a real ghost.

ever seen paranormal witness? the second episode? where this lady has the ability to remote view in her dreams? she helped the police find out what had happen to this lady who went missing and crashed her car along the side of the road. with this lady's help the car was found and the son was still alive after several days missing. if it wasn't for her his life would possibly be gone. these are actual accounts with police and others involved like family who can testify as to what occured and how they believe she was able to help them.

Or it could be a real ghost.
:eek:
Define "real ghost".


ever seen paranormal witness? the second episode? where this lady has the ability to remote view in her dreams? she helped the police find out what had happen to this lady who went missing and crashed her car along the side of the road. with this lady's help the car was found and the son was still alive after several days missing. if it wasn't for her his life would possibly be gone. these are actual accounts with police and others involved like family who can testify as to what occured and how they believe she was able to help them.
Oh great, now he's using TV programmes as evidence. :rolleyes:

Yeah.
And have you bothered (or even considered) checking the validity of those claims? Have you looked at both sides of the stories?

Or would you rather just take that site's word for it?

I've done alot of checking out of stories and their validity. I also watch a show called fact or faked paranormal. Its a good series to watch because it shows alot of these really popular sightings and puts them to the test. I've learned about alot of the faked and lied about popular sightings because of this show. a must watch for those wanting truth.

the question is have you checked out all these stories?

Like I've mentioned I'm after the truth not selling anything or trying to pull a prank.

I don't have money to pull a prank really. All I have is a small cheap camera that can video tape.

in fact there was a good ufo sighting one night on fact or faked that was done where they try to fake the sighting and were unable to. their belief is that is enough credible evidence to not be able to reject the video and the claim. they even used light up frisbies and a boat with balloons but could not reduplicate the video that was made using the same kind of camera I have. :cool:

:eek:
Define "real ghost".


Oh great, now he's using TV programmes as evidence. :rolleyes:

well programes can give alot of insight to facts by eyewitnesses. so yeah if its a detailed true story and not made up , and you have the actual police officers name and the actual names of the eyewitnesses than yes, I will use what ever comes around.:p

now are you calling these people liars because it doesn't fit into what you believe possible? or are you going to compare this show to lost video tapes which is a made up account using alot of true accounts to make up a story?

I've done alot of checking out of stories and their validity.
Really? How?


I also watch a show called fact or faked paranormal. Its a good series to watch because it shows alot of these really popular sightings and puts them to the test. I've learned about alot of the faked and lied about popular sightings because of this show. a must watch for those wanting truth.
No TV show is worth watching for science. They're subject to too many other considerations.


the question is have you checked out all these stories?
Far more than you, apparently.


Like I've mentioned I'm after the truth not selling anything or trying to pull a prank.
And this is why you persistently go for the non-scientific "explanation"?

I think my examples clearly elaborate one region. There are such specific regions throughout the world.

Not particulary, can you provide a link perhaps?

well programes can give alot of insight to facts by eyewitnesses. so yeah if its a detailed true story and not made up , and you have the actual police officers name and the actual names of the eyewitnesses than yes, I will use what ever comes around.
Oh dear. How do you know that what is presented is fact, rather than hyped-up nonsense?


now are you calling these people liars because it doesn't fit into what you believe possible? or are you going to compare this show to lost video tapes which is a made up account using alot of true accounts to make up a story?
Hmm, let me see. You claimed that "she helped the police find out what had happen to this lady who went missing and crashed her car along the side of the road. with this lady's help the car was found and the son was still alive after several days missing. if it wasn't for her his life would possibly be gone. these are actual accounts with police and others involved like family who can testify as to what occured and how they believe she was able to help them."
Yet we also have this:

No police department reported any instances of a psychic investigator providing information that was more helpful than other information received during the course of a case
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective).

See also this (http://www.skeptically.org/spiritualism/id10.html) and this (http://news.discovery.com/human/missing-persons-and-abductions-reveal-psychics-failures.html).

Tell me again about "facts" from TV shows. :rolleyes:

Crop circles are guesswork. What would make you think that they are real? Maybe some unknown science in the patterns? Maybe a warning? The technology that makes them could also make them in other materials.. sand.. clouds, poppy fields, somebody's lawn. I think that the proof would come from seeing the shapes in more incredible places.

Exactly.
Why not leave a crop circle on the moon?
Not with crops, but in the dust.
A big complicated New Age shape on the moon that looks like it was made by hippies or pranksters,.
That'd give the earthlings something to think about.

Exactly.
Why not leave a crop circle on the moon?
Not with crops, but in the dust.
A big complicated New Age shape on the moon that looks like it was made by hippies or pranksters,.
That'd give the earthlings something to think about.

Yeah the moon, that would be the answer.

Really? How?


No TV show is worth watching for science. They're subject to too many other considerations.


Far more than you, apparently.


And this is why you persistently go for the non-scientific "explanation"?

non scientific explanations? hahahaha! what do you mean by this? you mean come up with another explaination. that has been what I have been looking for as I've said many times. ufo just means unidentified. that is all have said it is.

I asked if you had an explaination on your scientific beliefs and yet you have come up with nothing.

as for how I check out validity. it has to do with a group of multi collaborators who have witnessed the same thing. if they can collaborate on the same telling with different view points but come up with the same conclusion we don't know what it is but it isn't from what we do know. than its a unknown. and unless someone comes forth with an explaination than it remains just that an unknown phenomena.

As for persistently going for anything I go persistently for answers and that is all I do. i am very open to alternative ideas of what could of taken place with each case. so are those doing the documentaries alot of the times they are still in shock about it all. this show is not just a show but a documentary if you read up on how the cases were found. a very good episode. I think that ufo hunters would like this case alot with the helicoptor chase ufo episode.

Oh dear. How do you know that what is presented is fact, rather than hyped-up nonsense?


Hmm, let me see. You claimed that "she helped the police find out what had happen to this lady who went missing and crashed her car along the side of the road. with this lady's help the car was found and the son was still alive after several days missing. if it wasn't for her his life would possibly be gone. these are actual accounts with police and others involved like family who can testify as to what occured and how they believe she was able to help them."
Yet we also have this:

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective).

See also this (http://www.skeptically.org/spiritualism/id10.html) and this (http://news.discovery.com/human/missing-persons-and-abductions-reveal-psychics-failures.html).

Tell me again about "facts" from TV shows. :rolleyes:

your giving links to discriptions I know all ready about and dont' need a dictionary about it. what is your arguement because you have not said anything in a arguement that makes any sense to me on this.

I have no idea what your attacking on and how you would just throw it all out the window as hype is rediculous to me.

your giving links to discriptions I know all ready about and dont' need a dictionary about it. what is your arguement because you have not said anything in a arguement that makes any sense to me on this.
It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?


I have no idea what your attacking on and how you would just throw it all out the window as hype is rediculous to me.
Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources. :rolleyes:

Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources. :rolleyes:

You're talking about the guy who blows ants back to life.;)

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?
:roflmao:

oh fuck ellis, that was superb !

It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?


Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources. :rolleyes:

Oh you mean that the police don't believe in her claim about what she is. they just believe she pointed them in the exact area she was found.

hahaha!

that doesn't make it a invalid claim that just means they collaborated on the cliam and are hostile witnesses. lol!

It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?


Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources. :rolleyes:

look stop calling me names and keep it nice here ok. or I'm sure the moderators like name calling around here and hostile posters.


or is that a sign of your maturity coming out. and the fact you really keep an open mind. yeah right!

You're talking about the guy who blows ants back to life.;)

thats chick to you. and yeah I do cliam it because it happen.

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?

now your just being funny. I certainly wouldn't blow on you. ;)

not even if I was dead? that's not very nice. Here's an article on zombie ants you may like.... http://www.livescience.com/5631-zombie-ants-controlled-fungus.html

I checked out Jim Marrs and although he's written some interesting stuff on the Kennedy assassination, he has seemingly become either greedy and moved on to a "fiction-posing-as-journalism" period to sell books or gone batshit crazy.

look stop calling me names and keep it nice here ok.
Then start showing some sense. Preferably soon.


or is that a sign of your maturity coming out. and the fact you really keep an open mind. yeah right!
Maturity?
This from someone who dismisses an actual report from the police while believing a TV programme that states otherwise? :rolleyes:

Then start showing some sense. Preferably soon.


Maturity?
This from someone who dismisses an actual report from the police while believing a TV programme that states otherwise? :rolleyes:

I'm not dismissing the report at all it collaborates what is happening!:rolleyes:

Your missing the important points here and that is the police officer went out to the area only because of this lady seeing the women laying in the road. This women the police officer reports could not be the same one because she was dead in the car several days ago.

This only collaborates that something unusual happen. but I thought I was talking about the helicoptor chase and the police officers all report seeing and being chased by a ufo. so I think we went off the thread here.

you know evidence what evidence is based on! Data and observation.

Data evidence and observation>

eye witnesses accounts
physical evidence
video, pictures, lingering physical evidence
multi collaborating eye witness accounts

Belief of not enough of data and observational evidence based on belief:

not enough physical evidence or belief in physical evidence based on some fakes
belief that people are either, mental, faking for what ever reason, or fooled
belief that there is not enough physical evidence left behind

ignore burns left behind on victims
ignore all the video's and pictures as fakes
ignore all people with accounts because in view they were fooled or wanting attention or mental
ignore multi accounts of eye witnesses because they were all fooled

auto matically assuming a person is in the last catagory leaves no room for proof

yes people have been fooled. no doubt fakes are out there. no doubt there are mental cases out there. not doubt there are people just wanting attention.

but you do not just assume that all these beliefs of no evidence or too lacking in evidence is the case with ufo's when you combine all the data you can find.

that is being immature to name call on the basis that i'm not able to think for myself and draw a conclusion based on your belief. I'm still looking for answers and its not a closed thing for me. I just know what I seen in not a missil, a ball of lightening.

You know why its not a ball of lightening I had seen? Because if it was it would of been attracted to the appliances and electrically things in the apartment complex. It would not of just speed off horizontal and than went into the ground.

I'm not dismissing the report at all it collaborates what is happening!:rolleyes:
I think you mean corroborates.
Okay, please tell me how:

No police department reported any instances of a psychic investigator providing information that was more helpful than other information received during the course of a case
Or

psychics actually hinder effective investigations.
Or

Despite claims to the contrary, there is not a single documented case of a missing person being found or recovered due to psychic information
(One quote from each source) even begins to support your claim that psychics helped the police.


Your missing the important points here and that is the police officer went out to the area only because of this lady seeing the women laying in the road
See above.


This only collaborates that something unusual happen.
Agreed. But what you are failing to realise is that the "unusual" thing that's happening is that you're not actually reading what is written.

Hell, if they're so smart and want to send us a message then why don't they just broadcast it on TV? Surely radio waves and language translation must be within the power of a species that can cross at least intergalactic distances.

I think you mean corroborates.
Okay, please tell me how:

Or

Or

(One quote from each source) even begins to support your claim that psychics helped the police.


See above.


Agreed. But what you are failing to realise is that the "unusual" thing that's happening is that you're not actually reading what is written.

I did not fail anything. I actually watched the show so its clear what the police was saying.

I know what your saying about the ufo's. which you avoided. about explaining something away in a rational way which means anything that has nothing to do with ufo's because as people have made clear that is believed irrational thinking.

Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.

The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational.

For example:

They explain the accounts like this. A group of people were frighten by a meteor crash. so frighten that they had shock and illness from said trauma of seeing a meteor crash and the vapor cloud had the appearance of a man figure. The flight pattern was like a barn owl.

So what was it? A meteor or a barn owl these people saw?

the foliage must of created the illusion of a pleated green skirt.

hysteria and heighten state caused the illness from the metorite crash.

yet the investigators only found some oil on the ground that was most likely from a truck that was there to check out the area.

so where is the meteor? and were is the impacted area of said meteorite?

why when they had a search light , the witnesses could not tell it was a barn owl?

is this really rational explainations when there are so many holes in it?

the same with mothman!:shrug:

so everyone who see's something that does not fit with rational (there is no such thing as ufo's) or irrational (something unknown was seen).

It's not about evidence or whose rational. its about observation and data and keeping it as that and not with prejudices about what is rational, but what is the facts.

Hell, if they're so smart and want to send us a message then why don't they just broadcast it on TV? Surely radio waves and language translation must be within the power of a species that can cross at least intergalactic distances.

who says they are trying to send us a message?

we have no idea who they are or what!

the good evidence and most popular sound like crashes to me. :shrug:

such as Rosewell. the flatwood monster, ect.

I did not fail anything. I actually watched the show so its clear what the police was saying.
One more time: it was a TV show. These are programmes designed to hold an audience and are not necessarily truthful.


I know what your saying about the ufo's. which you avoided. about explaining something away in a rational way which means anything that has nothing to do with ufo's because as people have made clear that is believed irrational thinking.
Then you don't know what I'm saying.


Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.
The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational.
Empty claim.


It's not about evidence or whose rational. its about observation and data and keeping it as that and not with prejudices about what is rational, but what is the facts.
Correct.

Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.
The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational. ”

Empty claim.

How is it a empty claim?

The government came out and did an investigation. They accused the eyewitnesses of not knowing a barn owl or meterite. Shoot, I've come a cross a horned owl in the middle of the woods. I ended up standing in its way for some kitten , who was probably dinner. :eek: I could tell what it was and I did not need a search light to know it was a bird.

if it was a meteor, than why is there nothing but a foul smell left behind and no sign of a crashed meteor? just a spilt oil leak.

as far a a t.v. show being nothing but lies. when it comes to a documentary I take it with a grain of salt. you can weed out the personal mumbo jumbo and still get what is evidence. like this last episode.

not about ufos but still. it was clear some people do let their fear get in the way and blow things out of porportion. no different than "Taps" and spiders and spider webs, lol. They think something is touching them. it is. muahhahha!

but it doesn't mean nothing was happening. some of the things like flying objects across the room. well that is hard to explain away.

oh and I had a person come in along time ago to spray for pests, they ran out of the place too. but with spiders all over them. they get fed alot by the ants probably have somemore spiders lurking. :)

How is it a empty claim?
Because, once again, you provide no sources. And you have already shown a predilection for choosing to believe "popularised" versions of events over facts.


as far a a t.v. show being nothing but lies.
Not what I said.


when it comes to a documentary I take it with a grain of salt.
Yet you choose to believe the TV programme over actual statements from police forces. Statements where they directly contradict the claims of the TV programme.


you can weed out the personal mumbo jumbo and still get what is evidence. like this last episode.
A TV programme is not evidence.

Because, once again, you provide no sources. And you have already shown a predilection for choosing to believe "popularised" versions of events over facts.


Not what I said.


Yet you choose to believe the TV programme over actual statements from police forces. Statements where they directly contradict the claims of the TV programme.


A TV programme is not evidence.

thats the thing. the police did not directly contradict the cliams he enforced them. if he had not taken into account the call to his fellow dispatchers who had received the call and went out before him to search at night for this women on the side of the road, he would of never found the car. he did not know what the lady saw was a vision. he went out to the area she claimed the women was seen thinking it was possibly the one they have been looking for who disappeard with her son days ago.

Oh here is my homey spider todays picture.

Yes i have

Yes i have

You've seen a ufo too?

Please details!!!

thats the thing. the police did not directly contradict the cliams he enforced them.
Lie. As shown by my links and quotes.


if he had not taken into account the call to his fellow dispatchers who had received the call and went out before him to search at night for this women on the side of the road, he would of never found the car. he did not know what the lady saw was a vision. he went out to the area she claimed the women was seen thinking it was possibly the one they have been looking for who disappeard with her son days ago.
You're still using ONLY the TV programme as a source. :rolleyes:

Here is a possible flying humonoid!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/one-giant-leap-for-a-jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html?action=Popup

still don't know what your talking about as far as the lie is concern!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/one-giant-leap-for-a-jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html?action=Popup

Here is a possible flying humonoid!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/one-giant-leap-for-a-jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html?action=Popup

still don't know what your talking about as far as the lie is concern!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/one-giant-leap-for-a-jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html?action=Popup

Possible humanoid? possible...

You need you eyes testing.

One more time: it was a TV show. These are programmes designed to hold an audience and are not necessarily truthful.


Then you don't know what I'm saying.


Empty claim.


Correct.

True they can be misleading in shows. But this was not just a show. It was a documentary, with the actual eye witnesses coming on and talking about what happen. Including the police officer himself, verbally admitting to what took place and how he got a intuitive idea to check out the area and that is how he found the car and saved her son. If he had not been talking to his fellow officers about the psychic 's claim of a women laying out of the road in the very location the car went over, than the son would not be here today.

I'm not just using tv shows for my claims but eye witness testimony. maybe you need to reread the site and how the show has found these accounts. Most of them were seeked out , and were asked to go over their accounts, after news papers and media got a hold of it.

You can also say that the news is misleading. that you can not believe what they report because its based on eye witness accounts. but most people take the news with a grain of salt to.

True they can be misleading in shows. But this was not just a show. It was a documentary, with the actual eye witnesses coming on and talking about what happen.
Therefore it was a TV show. With ratings to care about.


Including the police officer himself, verbally admitting to what took place and how he got a intuitive idea to check out the area and that is how he found the car and saved her son.
Which is denied by the reports I linked to.

What is said on TV is NOT to be taken as truthful.


I'm not just using tv shows for my claims but eye witness testimony.
You are aware that eye witness testimony is just about the least reliable form of evidence there is, aren't you?

Possible humanoid? possible...

You need you eyes testing.

you mean eyes tested?

You should see all the different flying suits they have for adrenoline junkies.:D

eye witness testimony is not the least reliable. who ever says that is wrong. because science would not be what it is today if that were true.:D

since most of science is based on observation.

eye witness testimony is not the least reliable.
Wrong.


who ever says that is wrong.
Rubbish.
Those who say that happen to be the police, the courts and science.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification


because science would not be what it is today if that were true.
Also rubbish. In fact utter rubbish.


since most of science is based on observation.
Bull. Shit.
Get a clue.

Wrong.


Rubbish.
Those who say that happen to be the police, the courts and science.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification


Also rubbish. In fact utter rubbish.


Bull. Shit.
Get a clue.

o.k. you do know that your information is obtained by wiki is also tainted by hearsay? the percentage is a estimated guess by one peticular person who is making a claim? they also put out there possible cases that, ect. as in making claims that are not supported? so wiki has to be taken with a grain of salt as well.

this evidence observation is also talking about one peticulor type of witness, one that is being traumatized by an event, is usually confused by the victimizer who does not want to be recognised and so doing can purposely confuse the witness by wearing dark clothing, eye wear, hats, ect.

but as Ive said. with the case we're talking about, which you have to take each individual claim as a separate issue, there is the collaborating evidence all around that points to something strange and unknown occuring. reguardless of what each one believes possible.

so its not bull shit.

o.k. you do know that your information is obtained by wiki is also tainted by hearsay?
That would be why I gave the link with the words "START HERE". Read it, and then check the links given. :rolleyes:


the percentage is a estimated guess by one peticular person who is making a claim?
No it isn't.


this evidence observation is also talking about one peticulor type of witness, one that is being traumatized by an event, is usually confused by the victimizer who does not want to be recognised and so doing can purposely confuse the witness by wearing dark clothing, eye wear, hats, ect.
Check. The. Links.
Or do you wish me to spoon feed you?


but as Ive said. with the case we're talking about, which you have to take each individual claim as a separate issue, there is the collaborating evidence all around that points to something strange and unknown occuring. reguardless of what each one believes possible.
In other words, you're going to continue believing what you want to regardless of the facts.


so its not bull shit.
Wrong. Your final claim was (and still is) nonsense.

You've seen a ufo too?

Please details!!!

i was about 10. my whole family and cousins also saw it.. it was by far the brightest thing in the sky clear warm night. the object "looked like a start" started moving west picking up speed then suddenly stopped for a second then started very quickly moving to the north fast and faster until it looked like a streak then it was gone in a blink of an eye. to this day every now and again we talk about what it could have been

That would be why I gave the link with the words "START HERE". Read it, and then check the links given. :rolleyes:


No it isn't.


Check. The. Links.
Or do you wish me to spoon feed you?


In other words, you're going to continue believing what you want to regardless of the facts.


Wrong. Your final claim was (and still is) nonsense.

Lets see. The information says on wiki itself they do not hold up to what is true or correct being presented.

Now for facts:

1. the information I'm reading is misleading, is made by a small group of people which as we know is not all inffliable. a court perceeding that was made but here is what I'm after.

what do the courts base their facts on?

its based on a small group of accounts made on what specific dates?

how is this census on all cases relate to the small amount that would only be possible to obtain in a given time period?

its obviously based on heresay, opinionated judements on views of a small amount of cases.

very misleading to me in my opinion.

also how do they prove that said cases from past, and to present day have been proven falsely accused by dna, when none can be obtained vs those few cases in comparison to how many are out there that lay in limbo?

again very misleading of facts.

I would guestion something that can not be proven one way or the other in my opionion what your arguement lies with is misleading facts.;)

Now for facts:
1. the information I'm reading is misleading
Wrong. That's your assumption, not a fact.


what do the courts base their facts on?
its based on a small group of accounts made on what specific dates?
Also wrong.


also how do they prove that said cases from past, and to present day have been proven falsely accused by dna, when none can be obtained vs those few cases in comparison to how many are out there that lay in limbo?
again very misleading of facts.
And now you're just being incoherent.


I would guestion something that can not be proven one way or the other in my opionion
Yes, the final two words expose the flaw in your argument. Your OPINION is not what counts with regard to proof or not. You have already shown yourself to be singularly uninformed, rather badly educated and not given to looking at anything that contradicts your previously-formed beliefs.


what your arguement lies with is misleading facts.;)
Also false.

Wrong. That's your assumption, not a fact.


Also wrong.


And now you're just being incoherent.


Yes, the final two words expose the flaw in your argument. Your OPINION is not what counts with regard to proof or not. You have already shown yourself to be singularly uninformed, rather badly educated and not given to looking at anything that contradicts your previously-formed beliefs.


Also false.

its not my assumption its the facts. you can not make a claim based on things you can not prove. They can not prove anything because the facts are that most the cases out there are still in limbo and can not be proven one way or the other.

the whole basis on evidence and obtaining information is from observation. the claim that personal observation is the worse kind of evidence is a false claim.:rolleyes:

prove me wrong! than you can call me incoherent.:cool:

and it sounds like most the people who believe this have their own personal assumptions being made. that is it assumptions. no proof. no facts to back them up.

take me to court on this and i'd have it over thrown. on the basis their is not enough facts and just misleading assumptions being made.

its not my assumption its the facts. you can not make a claim based on things you can not prove.
Wrong again. It HAS been proven. Read. The. Links.
Try this one.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm


They can not prove anything because the facts are that most the cases out there are still in limbo and can not be proven one way or the other.
Specious argument. Non-sequitur.


the whole basis on evidence and obtaining information is from observation. the claim that personal observation is the worse kind of evidence is a false claim.
Wrong wrong and wrong.
In science any observation is verified, repeated and verified again. Ad nauseam. Eyewitnesses see a one-off occurrence and then are expected to give reliable testimony. Please learn the difference.
Hint: one reason that observations are independently verified is because is has long been known to science that our senses are not reliable.


prove me wrong! than you can call me incoherent.:cool:
The links you were given (or more correctly, the links on that page) proved you wrong.
And as for "incoherent", your own posts show that amply.


and it sounds like most the people who believe this have their own personal assumptions being made. that is it assumptions. no proof. no facts to back them up.
Wrong. As shown.


take me to court on this and i'd have it over thrown. on the basis their is not enough facts and just misleading assumptions being made.
And stupid with it.

You're a troll.
I'm done with this thread.

In fact, I remember watching a show on people who wanted to prove this claim!

Yeah a show you would probably watch for once because of your opinionated views.

They used a unidentified flying object scenario for this claim.

Using a setting that some unknown thing had crashed landed in the area, they took a group of people out to the site.

Along the way they were asked to observe the surrounding and what they felt was going on.

Using a black helicopter, a man in a camouflage outfit and a gun standing out like a stake out person on top of the hill above the observers as they passed by.

With this short report of what took place, the observers came back with different views of what they felt had been observed.

One was talking about military and how she felt was happening at the time.

The people concluded whom were doing the test that the observers were very bad eye witnesses based on what they felt was observed.

However I disagree with this assumption being made. I do not think she was wrong on what she claimed. If a man in an outfit with a gun was in a stance like that its not too far off to make this claim. Imo!

Also the helicopter was very effective in making her believe this.

But all and all she was very good at observing.

She did see a man in outfit similar to military standing with a weapon.

She did see a helicopter and there was the claim of a unknown crash from others.

So all in all observation is not all that bad to go by. After all everyone goes by this everyday of their lives. Should we question what we see everyday as being true?

ok since your gonna make me out to be a troll. i left myself open for arguement sake.

there was no gun. there was only a stick.

so now my account is flawed. ;)

so does that prove or disprove me as a good witness?

or make a statement of all eye witness testmony as flawed?

no it does not prove anything.

so im gone with threats. bye.

Man, not only has this train been derailed, it turns it out it was carrying hazmat and 2 nearby towns had to be evacuated. Lots of people died.

Can we stop berating one another and get back to the subject now, please?

Bump for love

Yay!

I saw some blinking lights in the sky when I was Kid. They seem to be going in circles. But since I was a kid, I lost interest so fast. So I don't really know what happened to those blinking lights. Maybe some alien was taking pictures of me from afar cause I was just too cute? LOL

OP: Yes.

Yes. I've seen three at the one time. Classic orb-like structures.

Along with my family, and three other people from the neighbourhood. I live in quite a remote area :)

yeah i once saw a shining object in the sky just a couple years back. it was moving too fast i tried to videograph it through a portable digicam but with its full focal length it was impossible to capture that thing on it. i told my dad bout it but he didn't kinda believed it.
haha it was weird :D

I've never seen a UFO. You would think that in my life time I would witness something that could've been a UFO, but nope. I believe in the notion that there are other beings out there.

Greetings:

Have seen unusual objects in the sky on two occasions, in both cases I was accompanied by my wife.

First, not sure of exact date but it was during December back in the late '80's (if anyone is interested I can find the exact date by digging up the report we submitted to NIDS). As we were leaving a friend's Christmas party around 2am (completely sober) a sound best described as high pressure steam escaping (sort of a roar / hiss) drew our attention to directly above us. We witnessed a perfect equilateral triangle shaped craft traveling with one point "first" while emitting a contrail equal in width to its entire trailing edge. To give you a comparative size reference consider a baseball held at arms length. There are many more details, however I would much rather review my report to refresh my memory rather then trying to fill them in now and having to edit later......I would also like to add that I believe that what we saw was very man made.

Please find as follows the details of our second sighting (as submitted to National UFO Reporting Center:

Occurred : 11/27/2008 18:20 (Entered as : 11/27/08 18:20)
Reported: 12/2/2008 7:43:40 AM 07:43
Posted: 1/10/2009
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Shape: Light
Duration:1 Minute
My wife and I were walking our dog. As we came around a corner that offered an unobstructed view of the SE sky we saw three bright (magnitude -1 or so) equally spaced (if I had to guess I would say they were about 10 to 20 object diameters distant from each other) orange lights moving slowly north.

The objects were approximately the same diameter as an iridium flare would appear (we have seen and can easily identify iridium flares). As we watched the objects sputtered and faded out. We are 99% sure what we observed were flares. They appeared very similar to the "Arizona Lights" that caused such a stir a few years ago and were subsequently identified as flares dropped from A-10’s during a military exercise. It is possible that if they were indeed flares they may have been part of some sort of military exercise at the Willow Grove Naval Airbase which lies in the general direction of the observation......but military exercises on Thanksgiving night over a populated area?

We are hoping someone else in the area spotted this as well and will submit a collaborating report.

......anyway there you go folks and I hope you enjoyed my first post.

Maybe it was the Flying Sub.

Maybe it was the Flying Sub.

don't be silly

I would think that by now , we know that there are ligitimate UFO sightings

Maybe it was the Flying Sub.

Please.

I know what that sounds like and it wasn't that.

Lieutenant Kowalski thought he saw something like it once and claimed it made a ringing sound, but that proved simply to be an artifact of getting knocked out by your episodal Russkie, alien, or sea weed encrusted monster week in and week out.

Please.

I know what that sounds like and it wasn't that.

Lieutenant Kowalski thought he saw something like it once and claimed it made a ringing sound, but that proved simply to be an artifact of getting knocked out by your episodal Russkie, alien, or sea weed encrusted monster week in and week out.

Noted Captain.;)

I would think that by now , we know that there are ligitimate UFO sightings

What exactly is a legitimate UFO sighting? If you mean people have legitimately seen objects that they could not identify - I am on board. If on the other hand you mean ET's, you are completely wrong. There is no possible way you could know that, you can only believe that.

don't be silly

That was an obscure inside joke based on the name Richard Basehart.

That was an obscure inside joke based on the name Richard Basehart.

Richard Basehart was the object of an inside joke on this forum? That's wonderful! Just to let you know I adopted that handle because the character Gypsy on MST3K often made references to him (I think she had a bit of a crush).

Also regarding your previous post both of our sightings were more than likely man made. Still they were flying and remain unidentified, HOWEVER subsequent research leads me to believe that what we saw on Thanksgiving were probably variants of "Chinese lanterns". How someone could tie them together and still keep the whole contraption lighter than air kinda confounds me (why put the effort into something like that? Unless they were looking to puzzle a middle age couple and their German Shepherd, if so mission accomplished.

The other thing we saw? Who knows? It DID have an air breathing engine(s?). I think what we saw may have been some sort of military craft that was having some form of mechanical difficulty. It was spectacular.

it seems that UFO's are being dumbed down

to bad really

they are around

it seems that UFO's are being dumbed down

Is that even possible?


to bad really

they are around

Sometimes they are acigar or atriangle or so I have been told.:rolleyes:

“ Originally Posted by river
it seems that UFO's are being dumbed down ”


Is that even possible?

it seems so

for those who experience this

I mean , who , what country , comes out to say they , UFO , are real ?

I mean , who , what country , comes out to say they , UFO , are real ?

None, but this doesn't help your case one bit. In fact it's rather damaging to the UFO conspiracy theory.

World govts do not agree on much. This is why there is war, why there was NATO and the Warsaw pact, why some joined neither, why some are pro-nuclear, and others anti.

Why then, would they all agree to cover up the existence of UFOs/ETIs?

During the cold war for example, it would have been an incredible propaganda advantage for one side to state they had captured alien technology and were reverse engineering it to create a super weapon. The other side would have been desperate to capture their own, and been wasting time and resources as there was actually none to be had. Disinformation, you understand this, right?

But anyway, there's a problem with such a conspiracy even if world govts did agree,... since when did they have good communications,... good enough to make such an agreement? The Victorians laid telegraph cables under the sea, and across land, to enable Morse code transmissions to the colonies, and that was just the bits us Brits owned at the time. We are talking ~150 years ago, to get a Morse message across the Atlantic. Transatlantic radio commenced ~100 years ago. These communications methods were 'hub and spoke', central hubs had messages relayed to them, which were transmitted, and relayed again, so there were various steps, not all using the technology, so some comms would end up being post. So say, 120 years ago an alien craft crash lands in America,... the local Marshall saddles up and goes to see his boss, and rides, his boss may have access to a Telegraph, so sends a message to the State governor, who relays it to Washington, who relays it to other states to warn them, and other countries. How long does this take? Locals will pass the story by word of mouth, photography was possible back then newspapers printed pictures, and there wasn't really any way to stifle such publications, as control was devolved. It would take weeks to get this organised.

So then later on, communications becomes radio, or telephone, there are better roads, then the govt have aircraft, and can communicate, and travel much faster. Say post WWII, with jet aircraft. ~60 years ago, they perhaps had the capability of stifling such activity. But then, the public started getting better communications too, first cellphones, then the Internet, and then better yet, cellphones with cameras, and the Internet! I can take a picture, and upload it in seconds,... how could the Govt now stifle the public from disclosing what they see? They can't. So the window for conspiracy was short, even if all world Govts agreed on this one thing, which, given differences in religion, and political ideologies, that seems farcical.

You need to propose a sound mechanism via which such a worldwide conspiracy could work. Oh, and don't try the 'One World Govt' angle, if that were true, we'd all be wearing little uniforms, and working in factories and coal mines. Progress is slow when large numbers of people are involved.

None, but this doesn't help your case one bit. In fact it's rather damaging to the UFO conspiracy theory.

Yes, well you can't even work out why the aliens would even be interested in us, so I can see easily why you would have these thoughts above.

The reason is simple, and I explained this to CPTBork when he she? asked the same question.

The reason is for the development of what would be the superior technology on Earth. Even if a crashed UFO had been retrieved in Roswell, for instance, any reverse engineering wouldn't be too fruitful. If they are as advanced as many ''leeked'' scientists like to make out, then it seems evident that we would extract little information from such a thing. It is akin to asking an egyptian to work out a hand watch.

Thus, you can only imagine that the first country that does successfully create flying saucers with the kind of aerodynamical abilities as we see in certain authentic video's would literally, rule the world. It is a shadow government of sorts, the guys in the back room who are all struggling to get their first.

If it was made public, then those countries that had been niave to the phenomenon would almost certainly have a new chance to get their first. Worse yet, if any country admitted it, no longer is it a secret and the attempts of officials to understand UFO's would surely become public... defeating all the covert operations which so far have worked in their favour in this great coverup.

Yes, well you can't even work out why the aliens would even be interested in us, so I can see easily why you would have these thoughts above.

The reason is simple, and I explained this to CPTBork when he she? asked the same question.

The reason is for the development of what would be the superior technology on Earth. Even if a crashed UFO had been retrieved in Roswell, for instance, any reverse engineering wouldn't be too fruitful. If they are as advanced as many ''leeked'' scientists like to make out, then it seems evident that we would extract little information from such a thing. It is akin to asking an egyptian to work out a hand watch.

Thus, you can only imagine that the first country that does successfully create flying saucers with the kind of aerodynamical abilities as we see in certain authentic video's would literally, rule the world. It is a shadow government of sorts, the guys in the back room who are all struggling to get their first.

If it was made public, then those countries that had been niave to the phenomenon would almost certainly have a new chance to get their first. Worse yet, if any country admitted it, no longer is it a secret and the attempts of officials to understand UFO's would surely become public... defeating all the covert operations which so far have worked in their favour in this great coverup.

The reasons you have given are essentially the plot of a grade B made for TV science fiction movie. This is childish conspiracy nonsense based on nothing but your imagination...

Based on nothing but my imagination? So thousands of sightings are reported a every year from each country, yet it is all my imagination?

All I have done is take the jigsaw and piece the bits together as they seem most likely; of course I am biased to the idea we are being visited, but this is based on not only a personal sighting of myself, but also including years of research into UFO cases. This is not based on my imagination alone, but hard facts of the case.

Btw, I am 27 years old. I am not a child. I have independantly came to these conclusion were others like you fear to even mention.

Sorry Reiku, but you still make no sense. Such advanced civilisations have no reason to visit us in person. They'd have such advanced probes we'd never know they were here.

As to your 'shadow government' again, all you have done is regressed the problem. Why would separate shadow govts agree on anything, and communications are still an issue wrt the formation and conspiring of such a hypothetical organisation WHICH YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED TO EXIST.

And you miss the point about the value of propaganda. It flew right over your head.

Sorry Reiku, but you still make no sense. Such advanced civilisations have no reason to visit us in person. They'd have such advanced probes we'd never know they were here.

As to your 'shadow government' again, all you have done is regressed the problem. Why would separate shadow govts agree on anything, and communications are still an issue wrt the formation and conspiring of such a hypothetical organisation WHICH YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED TO EXIST.

And you miss the point about the value of propaganda. It flew right over your head.

I have explained this tho Phlog.

They will have more or less the same curiosity for the science of life. Just like how a family takes a trip to the local zoo, or how a scientist attentively watches the production of biological viruses or bacteria on their test plates. The find of a lifeform on earth in regards to this would be much more extreme and important.

Based on nothing but my imagination?

Yes that is correct.


So thousands of sightings are reported a every year from each country, yet it is all my imagination?

There are objects people cannot identify, big dea! The imagination part is this:

Originally Posted by Reiku
Thus, you can only imagine that the first country that does successfully create flying saucers with the kind of aerodynamical abilities as we see in certain authentic video's would literally, rule the world. It is a shadow government of sorts, the guys in the back room who are all struggling to get their first.

If it was made public, then those countries that had been niave to the phenomenon would almost certainly have a new chance to get their first. Worse yet, if any country admitted it, no longer is it a secret and the attempts of officials to understand UFO's would surely become public... defeating all the covert operations which so far have worked in their favour in this great coverup.


All I have done is take the jigsaw and piece the bits together as they seem most likely; of course I am biased to the idea we are being visited, but this is based on not only a personal sighting of myself, but also including years of research into UFO cases. This is not based on my imagination alone, but hard facts of the case.

You took the jigsaw puzzle and pounded the pieces that don't fit together based on your preconcieved ideas and came up with a childish, silly conspiracy theory that is based on nothing.

Yes that is correct.



There are objects people cannot identify, big dea! The imagination part is this:

Originally Posted by Reiku
Thus, you can only imagine that the first country that does successfully create flying saucers with the kind of aerodynamical abilities as we see in certain authentic video's would literally, rule the world. It is a shadow government of sorts, the guys in the back room who are all struggling to get their first.

If it was made public, then those countries that had been niave to the phenomenon would almost certainly have a new chance to get their first. Worse yet, if any country admitted it, no longer is it a secret and the attempts of officials to understand UFO's would surely become public... defeating all the covert operations which so far have worked in their favour in this great coverup.

All I have done is take the jigsaw and piece the bits together as they seem most likely; of course I am biased to the idea we are being visited, but this is based on not only a personal sighting of myself, but also including years of research into UFO cases. This is not based on my imagination alone, but hard facts of the case.[/QUOTE]

You took the jigsaw puzzle and pounded the pieces that don't fit together based on your preconcieved ideas and came up with a childish, silly conspiracy theory that is based on nothing.[/QUOTE]

I am not ignorant based on an over-amplified imagination, you are ignorant of the physics. There are no basic explanations of proper, authentic UFO's. No scientific one anyway. I can give loads of examples of UFO's which defy normal rules of propulsion. This is not about objects simply ''being unidentified'' they are suspect objects because ''they move unlike any conventional phenomenon.''

Go figure.

And the US have tried to simulate UFO technology in declassified papers by the way. Maybe the evidence makes my imagination run wild? Arguably, the evidence speaks for itself.

I remember read only, within the first few weeks of being here said to someone else no one, no country has ever tried to build a UFO, classic saucer shaped craft, which I proved wrong in one quick swift stroke.

I have explained this tho Phlog.

They will have more or less the same curiosity for the science of life. Just like how a family takes a trip to the local zoo, or how a scientist attentively watches the production of biological viruses or bacteria on their test plates. The find of a lifeform on earth in regards to this would be much more extreme and important.

But you won't know they are there, so you have no evidence this is happening.

All you have is ifs buts and maybes, and not even a solid theoretical model for how they could get here.

To believe in Alien UFO's you need to see some evidence. All I ever find on the internet is fake videos.

But you won't know they are there, so you have no evidence this is happening.

All you have is ifs buts and maybes, and not even a solid theoretical model for how they could get here.

Greetings Phlogistician:
If I may be so bold as to offer something here have you ever read about any Orion Project propulsion research that was conducted back in the late 50's (I believe)? We currently have the technology that could be used to accelerate an enormous amount of mass to a substantial percentage of the speed of light. Also, it was announced yesterday that the Kepler space probe has yielded data that shows that there are at least 100 BILLION planets in the Milky Way, 1500 of which are within 50 Light Years of Earth. With all that in consideration interstellar travel is far from impossible.

But you won't know they are there, so you have no evidence this is happening.

All you have is ifs buts and maybes, and not even a solid theoretical model for how they could get here.

I compare what we can't to what can, or who can.

work that out and then ask why I come to that decision.

To believe in Alien UFO's you need to see some evidence. All I ever find on the internet is fake videos.

I don't purport to false statements. I have seen three UFO's in one night. I have no video evidence, you will have to trust my own good judgement.
If you will?

Greetings Phlogistician:
If I may be so bold as to offer something here have you ever read about any Orion Project propulsion research that was conducted back in the late 50's (I believe)? We currently have the technology that could be used to accelerate an enormous amount of mass to a substantial percentage of the speed of light. Also, it was announced yesterday that the Kepler space probe has yielded data that shows that there are at least 100 BILLION planets in the Milky Way, 1500 of which are within 50 Light Years of Earth. With all that in consideration interstellar travel is far from impossible.

Interesting if true. I will disect this and put power into research of this claim.

I don't purport to false statements. I have seen three UFO's in one night. I have no video evidence, you will have to trust my own good judgement.
If you will?

I said alien. If you could see through the windows then.... amazing! :eek:

I said alien. If you could see through the windows then.... amazing! :eek:

What more is alien which we see in the night sky, performing acts beyond current technological capabilities?

Funny you said through the window... I did afterall, see the UFO's through the front living room window before my entire family hoarded us to the front poarch to see the UFO's directly above our house.

It was indeed amazing.

Greetings Phlogistician:
If I may be so bold as to offer something here have you ever read about any Orion Project propulsion research that was conducted back in the late 50's (I believe)?

You should do your research. Project Orion has of course been discussed, and debunked, right here at SF:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40942


We currently have the technology that could be used to accelerate an enormous amount of mass to a substantial percentage of the speed of light.

No we don't.


Also, it was announced yesterday that the Kepler space probe has yielded data that shows that there are at least 100 BILLION planets in the Milky Way, 1500 of which are within 50 Light Years of Earth. With all that in consideration interstellar travel is far from impossible.

We know there are lots of stars. So what? We can't detect if any have atmospheres, or life yet, so cannot pick a candidate to visit, even if we had the capability, which we just do not. Interstellar travel IS IMPOSSIBLE at present, we can't even get back to the Moon, let alone another planet in our own solar system!

What more is alien which we see in the night sky, performing acts beyond current technological capabilities?

To make the claim you saw something 'beyond current technological capabilities' requires you to know everything about every craft produced by every nation's secret development programs, and well, you don't have a clue.

I saw what many would consider a 'UFO' once,... but as it was near a 'disused' missile range, realised it was most likely a UCAV being tested, or being used for training.

To make the claim you saw something 'beyond current technological capabilities' requires you to know everything about every craft produced by every nation's secret development programs, and well, you don't have a clue.

I saw what many would consider a 'UFO' once,... but as it was near a 'disused' missile range, realised it was most likely a UCAV being tested, or being used for training.

How? Many of the technological aerodynamical presentation of these mysterious objects often go at speeds which a human could simply not endure.

This isn't a matter of me knowing what the secret projects are. It is a matter of the laws of physics and those of biology as well. We simply could not sustain the G-forces from some of the trajectories coupled with the speed these objects make.

How? Many of the technological aerodynamical presentation of these mysterious objects often go at speeds which a human could simply not endure.

And I gave you the clue when I mentioned a UCAV.


This isn't a matter of me knowing what the secret projects are. It is a matter of the laws of physics and those of biology as well. We simply could not sustain the G-forces from some of the trajectories coupled with the speed these objects make.

Why are the craft piloted? You state they perform maneuvers that a person could not endure, but then fail to come to the conclusion that they are therefore not piloted, but instead invent a far more convoluted explanation.

So yes, it simply is a matter of you not knowing what secret projects are capable of.

And I gave you the clue when I mentioned a UCAV.



Why are the craft piloted? You state they perform maneuvers that a person could not endure, but then fail to come to the conclusion that they are therefore not piloted, but instead invent a far more convoluted explanation.

So yes, it simply is a matter of you not knowing what secret projects are capable of.

No, you are twisting my words again.

I also mentioned, if you will read back and refresh that memory of yours, that it is a matter of biology and physics. If they are piloted by aliens, explain to me what makes you think they share the same biology?

They may have a biological composition which can withstand G-forces to much a better degree than ourselves.

No, you are twisting my words again.

I also mentioned, if you will read back and refresh that memory of yours, that it is a matter of biology and physics.

It's only a matter of biology if they are piloted, so the logical conclusion is that they aren't.


If they are piloted by aliens, explain to me what makes you think they share the same biology?

I don't think they are piloted, so the question is irrelevant.


They may have a biological composition which can withstand G-forces to much a better degree than ourselves.

Who are they? There's nobody inside those UCAVs.

It's only a matter of biology if they are piloted, so the logical conclusion is that they aren't.



I don't think they are piloted, so the question is irrelevant.



Who are they? There's nobody inside those UCAVs.

Well, if it is any consollation I actually believe that many of these devices probably won't be piloted by aliens (as though being in the ship itself) but there is a chance that many of them could be piloted from what is often called a ''mother ship''.

However, if they are piloted directed and they produce speeds which no human body could withstand, then of course it is a matter of biology.

As per usual, Phlog, you go about everything backwards. Either that, or your imagination is failing you, again..

As per usual, Phlog, you go about everything backwards.

Nope, you do. You invent extra-terrestrial explanations for terrestrial phenomena.


Either that, or your imagination is failing you, again..

I'll go with experience and imagination thanks. Experience tells me there have been secret military aircraft with cutting edge capabilities. Imagination means I can extrapolate that to what is secret now.

Terrestrial phenomena, by definition, is a phenomenon which happens on earth. That assumes, as you do, that the phenomena can be accounted for, like your weak, watered down and ignorant explanations of chinese lanterns and whatnot.

Experience tells me there have been secret military aircraft with cutting edge capabilities.But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience. What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities, and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience—an intuitive moment that just hangs there without a question and without an answer because the experience of it is so out there. It's as if the human psyche during those protracted few seconds reaches out into its collective unconsciousness searching in vain for some sort of archetypical association—the return search registers… nothing. Nothing about what is being witnessed feels earthly. Nothing corresponds. Nothing fits.

Believe me—you have no idea what an experience is like.

But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience. What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities, and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience—an intuitive moment that just hangs there without a question and without an answer because the experience of it is so out there. It's as if the human psyche during those protracted few seconds reaches out into its collective unconsciousness searching in vain for some sort of archetypical association—the return search registers… nothing. Nothing about what is being witnessed feels earthly. Nothing corresponds. Nothing fits.

Believe me—you have no idea what an experience is like.

Indeed... not only that, but when he said he ''had experience,'' I felt like laughing. I have afterall experienced three UFO's first hand. I doubt he has. In fact, I am sure he hasn't seen a geniune one that defy's all explanation. the kind I have been talking about with him.

He doesn't know what experience is. He thinks he does.

In fact, I am sure he hasn't seen a geniune one that defy's all explanation.

Wow, reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it?

I clearly stated I had seen something which many would interpret as being a UFO, but using a few facts, came to the conclusion it was most likely a UCAV.

So, no, I haven't seen something that defies all explanation, because I managed to rationalise it all by myself.

And you haven't seen a 'genuine' one, until you have some provenance. Which you don't.

But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience.

How can you say that? Experience tells us that the U2, SR71, B2, RQ-170, X37-B, all set new bars, height, speed, stealth, autonomy, capability, and that the stuff that is _still_ secret sets new records!



What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities,

Experience tells us past secret ones have had exactly that.


and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

Extrapolating from current tech is a fair method to guess what current secret craft can do. So, again, speed, stealth, altitude, handling, I have no doubt the US military has some really impressive test vehicles, if not production aircraft already, that easily explain a lot of 'sightings'.


You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

'instant impressions' are often quite poor interpretations of actual events.


An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience

WOO WOO! WOO WOO!

Experience tells us that the U2, SR71, B2, RQ-170, X37-B, all set new bars, height, speed, stealth, autonomy, capability, and that the stuff that is _still_ secret sets new records!Experience tells us... Appropriate insertion for the word 'experience', eh? But it's not exactly an experience to know about these aircraft first hand, but rather it's foreknowledge—you're dependent on it. And besides, one doesn't experience knowledge before one has perceived it first.

It's that experience of an initial perceiving of something that I'm talking about, the instant impression, a vision beheld—it's all without interpretation because it simply appears. Anything that follows that becomes an idea reasoned out post hoc, such as whether or not it's a U2 or a UFO because… But I think an interpretation depends on the nature of an initial impression—and one's own personality. That, that will consequently determine the clinching testimony of one's perceptions—some have spoken of a spiritual experience. Obviously yours wasn't.


Extrapolating from current tech is a fair method to guess what current secret craft can do.And so the scales of your choosing are tilted in your favor for your benefit, while a UFO/ET sympathizer is forbidden to extrapolate? Earlier you spoke of imagination as a method to extrapolate. But if I extrapolate from unimaginable accounts of my own, the nature of which could blow your mind, I'm a woo woo.


'instant impressions' are often quite poor interpretations of actual events.Instant impressions are not suppose to be interpreted but experienced. As I said, anything that follows that experience becomes christened by either an imaginable consciousness—or, as in your case, a mundane one.


WOO WOO! WOO WOO!See? You're blatantly biased—how on earth are we suppose to trust your own doo doo impressions??

But I think an interpretation depends on the nature of an initial impression—and one's own personality. That, that will consequently determine the clinching testimony of one's perceptions—some have spoken of a spiritual experience. Obviously yours wasn't.

Ok, so you are an unscientific woo woo. There's no point talking to you, really, it's going to be a waste of my time.

Ok, so you are an unscientific woo woo. There's no point talking to you, really, it's going to be a waste of my time.Big shit.

Big shit.

This is a science forum. You need more than subjective nonsense and references to scatology to make your point.

This is a science forum. You need more than subjective nonsense and references to scatology to make your point.

That's a bit hypocritical.

I gave you a long winded reason why 616 is most likely a scribal error, to which you childlishly said ''616 is the number of the beast'' which was unsupported with no proof. No hard facts in fact.

That's a bit hypocritical.

I gave you a long winded reason why 616 is most likely a scribal error, to which you childlishly said ''616 is the number of the beast'' which was unsupported with no proof. No hard facts in fact.

Wrong thread kid.

And it's 666 that's the scribal error, but if you want to discuss that, quit trolling here, and do it in the other thread.

Wrong thread kid.

And it's 666 that's the scribal error, but if you want to discuss that, quit trolling here, and do it in the other thread.

You are actually a fool.

Considering 666 in Hebrew is the number which appears in the conventional texts which were studied, the texts you speak of are their own scrolls, which contained 616, however, in those same scrolls the number 666 appears. Why would you precious number 616 be the beasts number, then, professor, if 666 also appeared in the same text?

You're suggestion it is not the beasts number is stupid; please, even wiki agreed with me, 616 is almost very likely a scribal error.

Now, I mentioned this because you are accusing him of being childish. You can be found in the same light, hypocrite. Bring it up in the other thread, I'll mention all the points again you can't refute.

You are actually a fool.

Is it worth getting reported Reiku?


Considering 666 in Hebrew

Dude, Revelations is in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, and the oldest know fragments of that text, refer to the number being 616.

Is it worth getting reported Reiku?



Dude, Revelations is in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, and the oldest know fragments of that text, refer to the number being 616.

So wrong. The oldest fragments have 666 written three times in the Bible. 616 appears only once. Revelations is the newest book of the Bible.

Go figure.

So wrong. The oldest fragments have 666 written three times in the Bible. 616 appears only once. Revelations is the newest book of the Bible.

Go figure.

Quote your source.

Why is it a scribal error?

Irenaeus in the second century knew of the 616 variation and discounted it as an error:

''Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), - I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.]''

Irenaeus was suggesting that old Greek copies of Revelation contained an error when copying the Greek letter xi with gematraic value 60 was wrongly copied into the Greek letter iota with number value 10.

It's common sense. If 666 appears three times elsewhere in the Bible, and the hebrew text predates the Greek, then the 616 reference is in fact the newest book which seems to have been written with the error.

It is called correspondance. It is within characteristic nature of the Bible to refer to numbers that have been used previously before.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616

have we not come around , in this day and age that UFO's are real

I mean for goodness sake people they are observed all over the world

to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you

to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to youI don't think these people are capable of handling an exopolitical reality beyond their own mundane realities—I mean, for crying out loud, they're still fighting amongst themselves to "prove" their mundanities!

have we not come around , in this day and age that UFO's are real

I mean for goodness sake people they are observed all over the world

to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you

What is real is that people observe stuff they can't identify - Big Whoop. To believe that it is anything other than the mundane we would need some evidence. Some bozo (or pilot even) saying they saw something is not evidence, people are terrible eye witness observers. It is just that simple, give me something besides blurry photos and eye witness accounts.

What is real is that people observe stuff they can't identify - Big Whoop.

This is the dishonesty inherent in this topic, River says 'UFO' but means ETI, as if people mis-identifying the mundane makes the other hypothesis more likely. This is similar to the argument 'science doesn't know everything, which is why I believe in god',... two completely separate topics, joined in the minds of woowoos only.

This is the dishonesty inherent in this topic, River says 'UFO' but means ETI, as if people mis-identifying the mundane makes the other hypothesis more likely. This is similar to the argument 'science doesn't know everything, which is why I believe in god',... two completely separate topics, joined in the minds of woowoos only.

Huh? I said I need hard evidence, not eye-witness accounts and fuzzy pictures. No, dishonesty that I can detect.:shrug:

have we not come around , in this day and age that UFO's are real

I mean for goodness sake people they are observed all over the world

to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you

They are real, but who is to say they are ET?

The problem is we have no hard proof, except for the aerodynaical capabilities of some of these phenomenon, even in the face of hard evidence.

What is real is that people observe stuff they can't identify - Big Whoop. To believe that it is anything other than the mundane we would need some evidence. Some bozo (or pilot even) saying they saw something is not evidence, people are terrible eye witness observers. It is just that simple, give me something besides blurry photos and eye witness accounts.But seeing something out of the mundane is... incredible, beautiful, even, but in the end it's just a sighting—of something. Nobody is proclaiming it as hard evidence except the skeptic putting the word in people's mouths and then hollering about woo woos while jumping up and down appearing to be one themselves!

This is the dishonesty inherent in this topic, River says 'UFO' but means ETI, as if people mis-identifying the mundane makes the other hypothesis more likely. This is similar to the argument 'science doesn't know everything, which is why I believe in god',... two completely separate topics, joined in the minds of woowoos only.


Huh? I said I need hard evidence, not eye-witness accounts and fuzzy pictures. No, dishonesty that I can detect.:shrug:

If that were all there were to it, not nearly as many people would be interested in the subject. The most compelling cases often involved RADAR and visual contact by multiple witnesses, and sometimes two or more RADAR systems.

One doesn't have to accept the most exotic claims in order to recognize that there is a credible mystery. Is it the position of our debunkers that any unexplained claim must either be ET, or nothing? Or can you imagine that there could be something else going on beyond completely mundane sightings?

Exactly Ivan Seeking,

It is not that any of our ''UFO-nuts'' believe in a ficticious show. We and any credible others, and those who have seen things for themselves, there is certainly a great mystery... Only those who solve such reasons will know why.

Huh? I said I need hard evidence, not eye-witness accounts and fuzzy pictures. No, dishonesty that I can detect.:shrug:

I wasn't accusing you of being dishonest,.. but those that hide behind the term UFO when they mean ETI.

If that were all there were to it, not nearly as many people would be interested in the subject. The most compelling cases often involved RADAR and visual contact by multiple witnesses, and sometimes two or more RADAR systems.


I used to have a job where some colleagues tracked weather using RADAR, so RADAR signatures do not imply anything more prosaic than atmospheric conditions.

I used to have a job where some colleagues tracked weather using RADAR, so RADAR signatures do not imply anything more prosaic than atmospheric conditions.

Okay, so one data point makes a proof. That is called crackpottery. Is this really your best logic?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that anything on RADAR must be weather? That makes our national missile defense program rather vulnerable. In fact we might launch an attack against a cloud any day now! :D

Have you watched the documentary that I linked or would that be too much bother - to learn a little about this first. Beyond the tedious documentation of events provided by Chop, it can mostly be verified as accruate through the Air Force's Bluebook files.

One doesn't have to accept the most exotic claims in order to recognize that there is a credible mystery. Is it the position of our debunkers that any unexplained claim must either be ET, or nothing? Or can you imagine that there could be something else going on beyond completely mundane sightings?The irony is that the topic itself cannot be discussed here in peace, as if it were some bloody mortal sin. YET, the topic is nonetheless being discussed and explored worldwide. Snuffing it out from Sciforums really doesn't make much difference. But it would be interesting...

Granted, there is no evidence, no scientific proof, but that doesn't stop the forum from discussing God.

Personally, I won't put my acumen and curiosity on hold over this while waiting for the likes of a scientific community to pick fleas out of their hair. I can still muse over particulars, conjecture the unfathomable, carefully view the enigma from different perspectives—Phlogistician's sternness notwithstanding.

The irony is that the topic itself cannot be discussed here in peace, as if it were some bloody mortal sin. YET, the topic is nonetheless being discussed and explored worldwide. Snuffing it out from Sciforums really doesn't make much difference. But it would be interesting...

Granted, there is no evidence, no scientific proof, but that doesn't stop the forum from discussing God.

Personally, I won't put my acumen and curiosity on hold over this while waiting for the likes of a scientific community to pick fleas out of their hair. I can still muse over particulars, conjecture the unfathomable, carefully view the enigma from different perspectives—Phlogistician's sternness notwithstanding.

Yes, I already got a little snippy in my last post, but for a good reason. Anyone who knows anything about this subject is fully aware of the limitations of RADAR. That is UFO 101, day 1.

The assumption that everyone but me is an idiot, is a crackpot position. But that is the one favored by many debunkers because they are willing to spend far more time arguing about the subject, than learning about it. I've been following the subject for a better part of 30 years now - I have read thousands of declassified and unclassified government files - and still don't know what to think. It is nothing less than insulting when someone spends five minutes thinking about this and decides they have it all figured out.I can say with high confidence that any such statements are based either in ignorance, or faith.

Okay, so one data point makes a proof. That is called crackpottery. Is this really your best logic?

Who said ONE data point? I certainly didn't. RADAR picks up weather, period. Weather happens all the time.


Furthermore, are you suggesting that anything on RADAR must be weather?

Considering it wasn't designed to look at weather, of course not. Be reasonable.


That makes our national missile defense program rather vulnerable. In fact we might launch an attack against a cloud any day now! :D

At least it might be able to hit a cloud! ROFL !


Have you watched the documentary that I linked or would that be too much bother - to learn a little about this first. Beyond the tedious documentation of events provided by Chop, it can mostly be verified as accruate through the Air Force's Bluebook files.

Project Bluebook was abandoned, with what conclusion?

Yes, I already got a little snippy in my last post, but for a good reason. Anyone who knows anything about this subject is fully aware of the limitations of RADAR. That is UFO 101, day 1

It's not just RADAR though is it? Be reasonable. We have RADAR in many and various locations, CCTV cameras, amateur and professional astronomers, satellites looking down on Earth, Satellites looking up, and digital cameras and video cameras in the hands of a good proportion on the Earth's population, especially recently, with the advent of the camera phone.

But despite the increased prevalence of surveillance afforded to us, ... we still don't get decent pictures or video. We monitor the skies in many wavelengths, up and down, but see ZIP buddy.

I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, none had recorded a UFO on any of their instruments. Neither had the Earth Observation Dept, neither had the Astronaut I met, or any of my friend's fathers fellow Air Force pilots. I find it odd that the few who claim to have such evidence, are also always hawking books,....

Project Bluebook was abandoned, with what conclusion?

The same conclusion that Project Bluebook's scientists had secretely agreed on since the beginning of the project, that was, to dismiss UFO's as terrestrial phenomenon.

It was biased before the official investigation went ahead.

The same conclusion that Project Bluebook's scientists had secretely agreed on since the beginning of the project, that was, to dismiss UFO's as terrestrial phenomenon.

It was biased before the official investigation went ahead.

If that decision was secret, how are you aware of it?

If that decision was secret, how are you aware of it?


It was actually disclosed at one point. Original source of information I have at my disposal I do not have, however, I bet a fair amount I could find something if pressed.

It was actually disclosed at one point. Original source of information I have at my disposal I do not have, however, I bet a fair amount I could find something if pressed.

I'm pressing you. Find it.

I'm pressing you. Find it.

Nope, I can't find those original claims. They are lost to things I have seen but have no record of.

Unfortunate really.

If that decision was secret, how are you aware of it?

you know as well as everyone the guy made leading it was a a debunker so he went into the project looking at it as a joke. they never really investigated anything more than a glance.. the project had absolutly no chance from the get go becasue of the people that were appointed

you know as well as everyone the guy made leading it was a a debunker so he went into the project looking at it as a joke. they never really investigated anything more than a glance.. the project had absolutly no chance from the get go becasue of the people that were appointed

Ah yes, this was the reference I was looking for --- thank you.

Been a while since I've posted. Please refrain from using this tread to argue. It's purpose is for people to swap stories, not insults.

Anyone else have story to tell?