• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Happy 70th UFO Anniversary!

Cosmic Yak said:
If you put those two statements together, it's quite telling.
You have posted no credible evidence at all.
Click to expand...


The radar data I posted has been verified and it depicted an ET vehicle and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I know the data and what it depicts. So once again, you either accept the evidence or not. If you say that I am wrong, then prove it. Don't just say that it is not evidence when you have no idea what the data evidence depicts.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Based on your history here, I decline to believe you.
Click to expand...


You have to understand it makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not because reality will remain unchanged and that is the way skeptics are in regard to UFOs. Remember, there are those who continue to claim there is no evidence the earth is round and no evidence that man went to the moon.

To sum it up, I let the data, official documentation and other evidence speak for themselves and for me personally, the question as to whether we are alone or not has been answered and I based that on my own experience, and knowledge of what the available evidence depicts.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Common sense says that if a saucer 100 feet in diameter hovers, and then zooms off at 40+ Gs, then that means the 100-foot saucer was not that of mankind. Yet, skeptics will claim the 100-foot saucer was Venus or a weather balloon.
Click to expand...

Is this the same "common sense" that sees a video like the one you posted and calculates that the UFO on it is moving at absurd speeds and making "impossible" manoeuvres, without actually realising it is not something 100s of miles up, but a bug a few feet in front of the camera?

skyeagle409 said:
Let me make it much clearer. I have never misidentified celestial bodies, weather balloons, aircraft lights or clouds as flying saucers while flying.
Click to expand...

And yet you post a video in which you mistake a bug for a hyper-advanced spaceship. Pardon me for being a tad sceptical about your ability to identify things.
 
skyeagle409 said:
The radar data I posted has been verified
Click to expand...

Once again, by whom? Neither the FAA nor the Belgian scientists who first claimed this have verified it- in fact, the reverse is true. The only other verification you have cited is an anecdote from a UFO true believer.
Which credible sources have verified this data?
skyeagle409 said:
and it depicted an ET vehicle and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand burden of proof, do you?

skyeagle409 said:
I know the data and what it depicts. So once again, you either accept the evidence or not. If you say that I am wrong, then prove it. Don't just say that it is not evidence when you have no idea what the data evidence depicts.
Click to expand...

Please don't misrepresent my position. I have no idea what these strings of numbers are supposed to represent, nor ( as you have consistently failed to reveal their source) where they came from.
What I do know is that you have not presented any solid, confirmed evidence of UFO radar contact that I haven't shown to be false. Every time.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Common sense says that if a saucer 100 feet in diameter hovers, and then zooms off at 40+ Gs, then that means the 100-foot saucer was not that of mankind.
Click to expand...

Common sense says that if radar data implies something flew supersonic at very low level over Belgium at night but nobody heard anything, then maybe there's some error in the data.
 
skyeagle409 said:
You have to understand it makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not because reality will remain unchanged and that is the way skeptics are in regard to UFOs. Remember, there are those who continue to claim there is no evidence the earth is round and no evidence that man went to the moon.
Click to expand...
What you must understand is that it is your inferences which are being disbelieved. Your inference is that UFO=Alien Space Ship. The challenge remains for you to show that your inference is correct.

To sum it up, I let the data, official documentation and other evidence speak for themselves and for me personally,
Click to expand...
No, you don't. This is specifically what you do not do. What you actually do is let the stories and "evidence" speak to you and then you interpret it for us to be UFO=OMGAliens! I decline to believe your interpretation. You may wish to look up the word inference.

the question as to whether we are alone or not has been answered and I based that on my own experience, and knowledge of what the available evidence depicts.
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting that you are claiming that your inferences are to be treated as evidence.

The challenge for you remains. You've claimed that some UFOs have been confirmed to be Alien Space Ships. Show me one. Until you can do that, I still decline to believe your inferences. Have you learned yet what "burden of proof" means and how it works?
 
steenkh said:
What is you experience with misidentifications?

How many UFO claims have you dismissed, and on what grounds?
Click to expand...


I have debunked an UFO sighting one night over Vacaville, CA several years ago because I knew that it was a blimp and also knew the schedule that it would pass near our area. Another was a crop circle near Solano College in Suisun Valley. Upon entering the huge circle, I went toward the center and found what I was looking for; a 1" hole that was used to create the circle. I've also debunked another UFO sighting near Redding, CA where two witnesses misidentified one of our KC-10 tankers that was training over the area. The aircraft is based at Travis AFB, CA.

I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained with down-to-earth explanations, but the reports that I am interested in are the radar/visual reports such as the Bariloch UFO encounter where the UFO flew along side the airliner as passengers in the plane and observers on the ground watched. The UFO forced the pilot to conduct a missed approach on final to the airport. the city was also blacked out as the UFO passed overhead.
 
Last edited:
Tolls said:
Is this the same "common sense" that sees a video like the one you posted and calculates that the UFO on it is moving at absurd speeds and making "impossible" manoeuvres, without actually realising it is not something 100s of miles up, but a bug a few feet in front of the camera?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say a bug in front of a camera. You might want to run that by engineers and scientist who observed saucers firsthand. After all, one team observed saucers hovering some 200 miles altitude above earth and I have supplied that report along with others as well.

Is this a bug in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS4GYJtVqkY
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
I have debunked an UFO sighting one night over Vacaville, CA several years ago because I knew that it was a blimp and also knew the schedule that it would pass near our area. Another was a crop circle near Solano College in Suisun Valley. Upon entering the huge circle, I went toward the center and found what I was looking for; a 1" hole that was used to create the circle. I've also debunked another UFO sighting near Redding, CA where two witnesses misidentified one of our KC-10 tankers that was training over the area. The aircraft is based at Travis AFB, CA.

I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained with down-to-earth explanations, but the reports that I am interested in are the radar/visual reports such as the Bariloch UFO encounter where the UFO flew along side the airliner as passengers in the plane and observers on the ground watched. The UFO forced the pilot to conduct a missed approach on final to the airport. the city was also blacked out as the UFO passed overhead.
Click to expand...
You're like all ufo fans because of the way you choose to interpret these testimonials. That being if a unidentified flying object behaves in an unusual way that naturally makes the object an alien craft. The way such testimonials should be interpreted is to shrug ones shoulders an make no declaration as to what it is. I hinted at previously it's been 40 some years since I saw on two occasions an ufo. To this day I still make no finale judgement as to the nature of what I saw. That's how you need to be. Until we have some physical evidence all of your pleading will fall upon deaf ears.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Once again, by whom? Neither the FAA nor the Belgian scientists who first claimed this have verified it- in fact, the reverse is true. The only other verification you have cited is an anecdote from a UFO true believer. Which credible sources have verified this data?
Click to expand...


Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force, who conducted the international press conference where he displayed the same radar screen I did, for the media which I used to match the radar data I have provided and confirmed by the Belgian Air Force and radar experts in Belgium. The data that I posted and matched to the F-16's screen which was presented by De Brouwer at that news conference was straight-to-the-point!!
Among others was Major Lambrechts, Belgian Air Force, the lead F-16 pilot involved in the incident in March 1990, professor Emile Schweitzer, one of the top radar experts in Belgium and many others. The data is undeniable and once again, confirmed as authentic.
 
Steve001 said:
You're like all ufo fans because of the way you choose to interpret these testimonials. That being if a unidentified flying object behaves in an unusual way that naturally makes the object an alien craft. The way such testimonials should be interpreted is to shrug ones shoulders an make no declaration as to what it is. I hinted at previously it's been 40 some years since I saw on two occasions an ufo. To this day I still make no finale judgement as to the nature of what I saw. That's how you need to be. Until we have some physical evidence all of your pleading will fall upon deaf ears.
Click to expand...


From experience, I know what we have, and what we don't have in the way of aircraft shapes and performance capabilities and I have also been aware of many radar/visual encounters involving pilots, which in some cases, had resulted in the loss of pilots and aircraft.

The data I have posted is very clear that the UFOs were not ours based on the fact we have no such performance capabilities as of today. In other words, we don't have large aircraft capable of conducting 40+ G maneuvers and stay intact or fly through the atmosphere at 9000 mph and not generate a sonic boom.
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
...The data is undeniable and once again, confirmed as authentic.
Click to expand...

My doubts are not over the authenticity of the data. They are over whether it accurately depicts the track of a real object.

Once again, I'd like to understand how have you confirmed that the multiple radars you say tracked this object all tracked the same thing? Radars which reportedly tracked something 'moving slowly' were clearly not tracking something accelerating by several hundred knots in a second and descending from 7000 feet to ground level in a few seconds while supersonic.
 
skyeagle409 said:
From experience, I know what we have, and what we don't have in the way of aircraft shapes and performance capabilities and I have also been aware of many radar/visual encounters involving pilots, which in some cases, had resulted in the loss of pilots and aircraft.

The data I have posted is very clear that the UFOs were not ours based on the fact we have no such performance capabilities as of today. In other words, we don't have large aircraft capable of conducting 40+ G maneuvers and stay intact or fly through the atmosphere at 9000 mph and not generate a sonic boom.
Click to expand...

You are making a gross error. That gross error is concluding said ufo's are alien craft.
 
skyeagle409 said:
I wouldn't say a bug in front of a camera. You might want to run that by engineers and scientist who observed saucers firsthand.
Click to expand...

What on earth do any of them have to do with the video you posted, that was clearly a bug in front of the camera.

skyeagle409 said:
After all, one team observed saucers hovering some 200 miles altitude above earth and I have supplied that report along with others as well.
Click to expand...

Then maybe post something that isn't clearly a bug.


skyeagle409 said:
Is this a bug in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS4GYJtVqkY
Click to expand...

No.
As said, it's clat either inside or outside the shuttle, but near. I'm guessing that some thrusters were fired at the point the speck suddenly changes direction, as you can see another fast moving speck appear at the same time.

This "confusing things that are near for things that are far away" is very common.

ETA: In fact, there's a slight flash just beforehand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom