The speed of flying saucers and blinking out phenomenon

comical.
people who love to argue,
are not emotionally stable,
hormones,

they thrive on confrontation and like the attention even if they are in the wrong.
but it's in these peoples personality's they can't help themselves.
a lot of times, people who argue have control issues, and need to be right.
some people are just naturally argumentative, and some people feel like they have to prove themselves.
interestingly, it is not uncommon for a naturally argumentative person to also be suffering from misconceptions
which render their arguments inaccurate
which makes it all the worse.
they don't really care about how it effects other people around them because they are immature and self centered.
and resorts to the more primitive brain center where they react.
it is terrible having to be around people who argue all of the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There has so far, only been two cases I have explained, the Westall and the Washington. In the case of Westall, we have a clear visual and identification of the craft. It made no noise and did move at incredible speeds. I doubt it is some warehouse toy like you would like to think happened.

This is about keeping the practical explanations as close to the what we have to deal with in the way of evidence. Proposing things like it being a helicopter or some other conventional explanation is to just ignore all this vital information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, however as in the 1952 case, we sent our best in the air to intercept several objects and none of them could be shot down.

You see, you have just shown or provided to us, a reasonable event in which ordinary things happen. The 1952 case is not normal and you shouldn't try and paint it out as such. It was an unusual event with an unusual set of circumstances. The most worrying part is that we couldn't even catch up with the objects because they sped off at incredible speeds any time anything came close to them.

You also commented that the Military do fly these objects in the public... well actually, no not in such a bold, dramatic 'look at us!' kind of way - yes drones have been seen and some of them no doubt have been Military craft, but there is no doubt in my mind they would not fly them over forbidden air space, especially the capitol of all places. Then you have to ask why the government got into a state of alarm, was there no man at top saying, ''stop asking questions, everything is ok.'' Well no, not everything was ok and a series of serious meetings, Military and governmental was involved straight after. It was a serious event that somehow, they managed to downplay over the years with bogus ''conventional explanations'' which was furiously refuted by the Military... it made them look incompetent. And most certainly wouldn't send up their own to have their own shot down. Please listen to what you are arguing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not what I think. It sounds most like a towed drogue that got dropped by a circling aircraft. But it's impossible to know for sure.

Agreed. And we have real, provable evidence that there have been flying saucers built by the military, that there are a great many kinds/shapes/types of aircraft out there, and that people saw a moving object of some sort. We don't have any evidence that it was extraterrestrials.

As I said before, sure, it _might_ be extraterrestrials. It might be Krash661 levitating a weather balloon with his telekinetic abilities. Or it might be one of our many aircraft. Which is most likely?

 

Not at the expense of ignoring evidence, that isn't how it works.

 

Based on the quality and consistency of an entire classroom and some other residents of the area, I think it would be safe to say there was nothing being towed. Of course if it had been, then you need to explain how an entire classroom including the science teacher and a few others had been completely incompetent in their ability to discern a UFO to a basic towing.

 

I'll just add, the object was seen independent to anything else. It was the UFO initially that had been seen flying over their school, reports of incoming air craft of Military nature was reported a spell away from the school near the field.

 

Actually, there is no evidence as such that the saucers are our own. If we couldn't get a saucer in the air (and by air, I mean a significant distance away from the ground, not skimming it) in the mid 1940's, then there are some serious consistency problems, technologically-speaking if we take into some other serious accounts, such as Kenneth Arnolds sighting of several UFO's of disk shape flying through air in 1915.

 

That's because we didn't try. We launched neither missile nor projectile.

"We don't know what happened" does not equal "it's not normal." It might have been a quite normal event misinterpreted by witnesses. We don't know.

BUT THEY DO. That's the point. The military screws up, just as civilians screw up. When I was at McClellan, a C-130 flew over San Francisco when George Bush (the first one) was there. There was a TFR over the area restricting all traffic, but the pilot wanted to take a look because he was military. I heard about it because he got royally chewed out when he got back to base.

So yes, military pilots do sometimes fly over restricted airspace, just as civilian pilots do. They do this because they screw up.

Because when an unknown aircraft flies over the Capital during the cold war (or after 9/11) people panic, and might just say "GO AFTER THEM!" before they find that one guy who knows what's going on. Eventually, of course, they do find that guy who says "calm down everyone, it wasn't a big deal." Which is what happened. Of course by that point the damage had been done and (I suspect) lots of people got into a lot of trouble.

Which is exactly what I would expect to happen if a group of military pilots royally screwed the pooch.

 

How do you know that?

Because most people have never seen a drogue tow operation and would not know what they were looking at. (I suspect that group includes you.)

There is hard, factual evidence that we had saucers. There is no factual evidence that there are extraterrestrial saucers. Based on those two facts, if someone sees a saucer, is it more likely to be ours or a space alien's?

 

Oh contraire, we did try. We tried to catch up with them, so they could load, lock and shoot. Those where the orders.

You make it sound like they got up there and just didn't bother their asses.

 

Again, based on the testimony of the children and adults, this does not sound like a towing at all. They reported seeing the UFO above their school, about a classroom of 40 or more children all witnessing the same object at the same time, yet none of them are even hinting at some kind of towing operation.

Again, to draw reasonable conclusions, you must take the evidence at hand.

 

I'm sure they would have got the basic idea if they saw it for real. The object would not have towed a great distance from any air craft, yet the UFO was distinguished as a real object and had been seen to land in a field according to the students.

That doesn't have any details in it suggesting a towing mechanism.

 

We had a prototype for a UFO which was eventually worked upon and abandoned. The files where then released and we all knew about it. That's not evidence working for the saucer hypothesis being our own. It's basically telling us we tried and failed and still on the market no such design exists.

Also, if we couldn't get one in the air in 1940, you must still address the issue how saucers where seen before this date as early as 1915 and perhaps before that also.

 

You think the presence of the objects panicked them?

Can you imagine how they reacted when they realized the objects where technologically greater than what they had to deal with at the time? You have no idea.

This is probably why there is such a high classification concerning the subject, because the technology is something the government wants. Back-engineering an object is easier said than done. But it's definitely something they will have tried to do if they got their hands on one of the objects, which I am inclined to believe they have. While there has been no successful documentation ever of a successful shoot down of a bona fide UFO in any country, however, that isn't meant to mean there hasn't been one and the details are still under lock and key.

 

And your original statement - " we sent our best in the air to intercept several objects and none of them could be shot down" - makes it sounds like they were dodging bullets and missiles. Neither is true. They simply couldn't catch up to them, which is an issue with speed or perception, not any evidence of alien technology.

Let's say a drogue tow operation flew over a field, circled for a few minutes, then flew off. What do you think it would look like?

I bet none of them mentioned a potential Avrocar link, even though from their descriptions it looked almost exactly like the Avrocar. Why do you think that was?

Agreed!

Again, what do you think the above towing operation would look like?

 

The fact the objects could have been travelling to anything like seven times faster than their own ability, might be taken as evidence of an alien technology. Indeed, whether foreign or extraplanetary, it was an alien encounter either way.

 

Well, if it was being towed, why had it stopped for a brief rest in the local crop field? Does that sound like a towing operation to you?

 

Saucer sightings predate the avrocar by about 20 years or more. I hope you are not suggesting that the entire school decided to just make the story up.

Based on this, I am not sure what your point is.

 

Again, our vehicles of the time could fly many times faster than those aircraft. Given that fact, which is more likely - they were ours, or they were space aliens?

Or it was an encounter with a domestic aircraft. Of the three, which do you think is most likely?

Yes, it sounds exactly like a towing operation with the tow vehicle circling the field. What you would see is an object fly overhead, then (as the tow vehicle began to circle) lose altitude. Eventually depending on the length of the tow line and the turn rate the drogue would touch down. As the tow vehicle returned to a straight line flight it would take off at what appeared to be an incredible acceleration and speed.

Avrocar - 1958
This sighting - 1966

So why didn't they say "it looked like an Avrocar?" Were they lying?