Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    11953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Moontanman

  1. Yet pilots did report these objects, close up, and one pilot reported "they are all around me... what do I do?' This is true. I have no respect for Don Menzel, he was an arch debunker in the pay of the air force and always asserted there was no possibility of any sighting being anything but misidentification or hoaxes. Still the Radar operators were quite used to weather inversions and this doesn't explain the close up balls of fire that were reported by the the military. Read the reports closely in an neutral mindset. I am fond of Gary Larson as well. The Gov is currently in a big uproar over UFOs being seen from Navy ships and radar and gun camera footage has been released. An official investigation is currently underway. The dark forest assumes that aliens conquer each other but even with FTL the logistics of invading and taking over a planet is quite an undertaking. Personally I think it's highly likely that "aliens" ignore planets and colonize places like the Kuiper belt and or asteroids. The gravity wells of planets like Earth preclude any mining of resources when things like Asteroids or Kuiper Belt objects are much easier to obtain resources from. Then you have the potential problem of infectious organisms and rowdy natives. I have my doubts that aliens have any use for planets at all, preferring to build artificial habitats from the materials already in orbit of a sun and even between stars. Their interest in us would be academic, akin to us sending researchers to some far flung island to study a new culture. Then there is the Idea of alien missionaries... which is arguably the most disturbing.
  2. I would suggest you ignore claims that come with no evidence or useless evidence and concentrate on the dozens if not hundreds of reports that come with an embarrassment of evidence. Such claims are not uncommon, one that I often cite is the Washington DC Merry Go Round in 1952 This event was distorted and obfusticated by the Gov that it remains the most debunked and believed report of all time, IMHO. Two things that stood out was that the gov attempted to write it off as nothing but a weather inversion that fooled radar operators yet the objects were seen by multiple independent observers, both military and civilian, multiple independent radars, the objects interacted with both civilian and military aircraft and the idea of a weather inversion, which was the official explanation was trivially falsified. I have my doubts that a weather inversion creates anomalous lights in the sky as seen by many independent ground observers much less the interaction between the objects and aircraft. Do I know what it was... no absolutely not, but I am quite sure the official explanation was pulled from someplace the sun doesn't shine. Not being able to say "I don't know" is one of the gov most profound flaws. I understand this but neither of us is qualified to really judge the accuracy of the photo. I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who took the photos and not us armchair quarterbacks. If am correctly identifying what you are talking about it's far to fuzzy to make any kind of judgement call as to what it was if anything. One of the pictures I gave a link to and is often touted as one of the best ever ufo photos was taken in Scotland, a great many sightings are from England, France, Norway, Germany, Russia, and other places around Europe A little bit of UFO humor to break any hostility that has been building up... if any.
  3. Again, extraterrestrial origin is just one hypothesis, no one should make the claim they are alien spacecraft without some extraordinary evidence but we do not require evidence beyond what is probable to convict someone in court of a crime. I think testimony from someone like Astronaut Gordon Cooper where he describes what appears to be a saucer shaped craft landing at an airforce base and being filmed is quite compelling maybe not enough to be absolutely sure but since when does science require absolute proof? I agree. Do you really think that we are likely to obtain such evidence? Motivations of aliens is... alien. we cannot require or even guess what the motivations of extraterrestrials might be or how they go about satisfying these motivations. I would be willing to contest this idea with you. Ridicule serves no purpose other than deterring anyone from making these reports. So you would dismiss a real alien spacecraft that landed near you because you can't make it happen again? Somethings do not repeat but are still real. Once while night diving near shore here where i live I saw what appeared to be a giant shark swim past me. It was gigantic, two to three times as long as i was tall, maybe bigger. I reported it to people at the dive shop and a couple marine biologists I knew. I was ridiculed immediately, no such shark existed in these waters, no one had ever seen such a beast here ever, no one had any reason to think such a beast could even live around here. A couple decades later up in and around Maine where such sharks do exist they tagged a large female around 16 feet long with a radio transmitter. Low and behold this shark was shown to spend considerable time around the entrance to the inlet I was diving in here in NC... Never dismiss an eyewitness because they saw something you don't believe they could have. No that sort of quality evidence is being dismissed and ridiculed due to them always being blamed on hoaxers using photoshop. The web is covered by such photos and reports but redicule prevent them from being taken seriously. I showed reasonably clear photos from a time when photos were generally difficult to "photoshop" by the vast majority of people and you dismiss them because you still don't think they are clear enough? In that time period taking a clear photo of an unexpected moving object was challenge to say the least. Then you need to take another look, the ground effect appears to be directly under the object. Admittedly the distances are difficult to judge but throwing a truck mirror at just the ring time to appear above a dust cloud on the ground seems a bit of a stretch considering the person who took it had a clean background and his testimony in a court of law would have been enough to convict others of a crime. How can you just dismiss this person and the photo like they mean nothing?
  4. We should have open minds for anything but you mustn't allow ideas to climb in and take a dump. I am totally against the idea of interstellar joy rides. The fact you would suggest this what the UFO phenomena is about shows you believe in ridicule of ideas you cannot wrap your head around. There many scenarios that would allow for interstellar travel, from slow boats to FTL. None of them suggest interstellar joy rides. Interstellar travel is hypothetically possible by various means, some of them do not even suggest biological beings have to travel between stars for biological beings to visit us. Fairies and ghosts are hardly reasonable suggestions, all of them require some degree of the supernatural to be involved. Some would even claim that things like faeries might even be manifestations of aliens or something similar. I do not hold with these ideas but if the evidence shows up I won't poo poo it because I think faeries cannot be real. My idea is not we must believe until proven... it's that ridicule and dismissal without at least looking into evidence that has been provided. Immediately going with it might be a hoax so it can't be real is not a path to knowledge. One of the pics I posted, is a good example of how a person could photograph and report a UFO, the picture doesn't exist in a vacuum, if only the picture existed with no corroborating testimony you would be correct but to ignore the person who took that photo and go immediately to it might have been a truck mirror so it cannot be real is not a path to knowledge. Can the assertion of a truck mirror be reasonably asserted to be true despite the person who took the photo being reasonably trustworthy... That is nothing but the old ridicule solution, which has been used over and over despite it not being useful in any except to try and make sure anyone who does see such things to be afraid of reporting them. I have no idea what an alien scout ship looks but I do know that similar photos have been taken around the world. Is everyone throwing the same truck mirror up and photographing it?
  5. In fact such things have been studied and explanations for them do indeed exist. Even if no explanations existed for such things assuming they cannot exist is simply not a path to knowledge. Fireflies? So if you saw lights moving through a forest you wouldn't want to investigate because we cannot explain them? Considerable effort has been put into explaining this and the conclusion has been it's mythology mixed with mistaken identification of coyotes with severe cases of mange. Investigation of "crop circles" has shown them to be hoaxes. I am suggesting your assertion of the approach is false.
  6. That wasn't quite fair, i apologize, I should have pointed out it couldn't be real before I resurrected a dead thread. The "creature" in question not only wasn't real it couldn't have been real. It was an apparent amalgam of so many different creatures as to be ridiculous. When I first posted this I was amazed that such a thing could be faked so well. Again my apologies if you thought I seriously considered this to be a living organism.
  7. I watch lots of stuff for entertainment, I thought this one was particularly weird, the guys running from it, IMHO, was a dead giveaway. BTW, this "creature" is so obviously fake it beggars the imagination that anyone would take it seriously. When i was young my friends and I would have dug out the mountain to pursue something like this, the idea the guy ran and didn't do back is ludicrous.
  8. Radar returns, physical effects left behind on the ground, biological effects on people involved do not count? https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/pentagon-report-ufo-sightings-left-witnesses-burns-nerve-damage/509-be603200-f6ba-4947-9799-e09eba7b0a72 https://www.livescience.com/ufo-report-human-biological-injuries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash–Landrum_incident Not the bold part of the report from the civil trial, the gov just said they had no diamond shaped aircraft of the description and the case was dismissed. So you assumption is that all such photos are hoaxes? Deciding ahead of time that any evidence must be hoaxes is not science. I am not necessarily saying these events/objects are extraterrestrial, I am saying we cannot explain them and so they should not be dismissed out of hand.
  9. https://allthatsinteresting.com/calvine-photo https://kiisfm.iheart.com/content/2022-05-09-best-photograph-of-a-ufo-ever-taken-has-experts-stumped/ https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/pentagon-report-on-uaps-contains-extremely-clear-picture-of-suspected-ufo.html There are many more, some so good they cannot be anything but an alien spacecraft or a hoax, many of them... IMHO are hoaxes because I am also flawed in my thinking that anything as clear as at least many of them simply cannot be real but I cannot say for sure they are not real. Billy Meier's photos have often been been the but of jokes but proving them false has been difficult. https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-50634120
  10. How would I prove Maccabee is not a crazy fringy guy? Actually I am equally unimpressed... so far, one of the biggest disappointment was the hoopla around a large metal stalactite like piece that was supposed to be left by a UFO, it was riddled with all sorts of odd metals you wouldn't normally find together. It turned out to be from a machine shop where they used a grinder to cut and shape metals. The stalactite was formed from the debris of the grinding process, quite funny if it wasn't for the seriousness of hoaxing something like this. Do you expect UFP to be written all over the object? BTW, the two photos are not connected in anyway other than being unexplained.
  11. Oblong from the perspective of the photo. No, unidentified is the conclusion presented by the other options. Either it is a real photo of something unidentified and extraordinary or it is a hoax. https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/former-air-force-chief-claims-he-once-saw-ufo-firing-at-nuke-missiles-launched-from-secret-base/ The optics of the photos would rule this out but it would be covered by the Hoax option. No i do not accept it, I simply bow to others who have studied this Bruce Maccabee who was named in the link. Why is it's size important? I cannot say exactly what the object was and I will not try to deceive you that I do. I am just bringing up things that have been photographed. I have my doubts that any photograph could be shown not be a hoax, proving a negative and all that but just because a hoax cannot be ruled out doesn't mean it is a hoax anymore than not being able to prove a hoax proves it is an alien spacecraft. That is why i try to say extraordinary object or even rather than concluding it is an alien spacecraft. The point of all of this is show that the idea that no evidence exists other than "lights in the sky" or "unsupported claims" exist. They do exist and just because they cannot be proven not to be a hoax doesn't mean they are, nor does the possibility of a hoax mean it is a hoax. All sightings must be judged on an individual basis and not simply an all encompassing proclamation. I know you are kicking my ass here but i will keep trying to get across my idea that something extraordinary has happened and our inability to explain it cannot be used as evidence against it. I know I come across as a conspiracy theorist but I honestly think it's quite probable that these sighting have been suppressed for some unknown reason for a very long time. The reason this has been suppressed could very well be quite mundane. Ridicule is a powerful tool and using it to suppress an idea is wrong IMHO. To be fair and honest I do not accuse you personally of being part of a conspiracy. In fact I am quite sure that if actual proof was submitted you just might be at the front of the line to examine it but until it happens all we have, in many respects, is a trial and all we can do at this point is to the evidence as presented and argue for the validity of that evidence. Some of the evidence is good and some of it is bad but all of it, to me at least, the preponderance of the evidence so far presented points to something extraordinary going on. We have many scientists who are coming out, at the very least, as supporters of the idea that something exists that can be studied. From Abraham (Avi) Loeb to other researchers like Garry Nolan studies are being done, finally real scientific investigations. What they will reveal is unknown and might open doors to ideas about everything from alien life to how the human brain is fooled into thinking it has seen the extraordinary. I think these studies are justified and are likely to yield results that might surprise everyone involved.
  12. No problem, my hillbilly roots were showing a bit. Yes you are of course correct that is why I posted two photos that many would say rise above faking. Of course hater gonna hate but believers are gonna believe no matter what. The key is to find a middle ground where you can judge the evidence apart from the extremes. The UFO phenomena is world wide, the idea it only occurs in the US is not just wrong but it speaks to the provinciality of the US. Seriously, some of the best sightings come from places as diverse as Australia, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, and South America
  13. As long as it was Vegan bread...đŸ¤ª
  14. Such photos avoid the blanket idea that they are all photoshopped but a huge number of modern photos exist and the number grows by leaps and bounds everyday but are easily dismissed by simply saying it could have been photoshopped. This idea of photoshop has pretty much destroyed the idea of photos being evidence of anything not just UFOs. If you want a more modern approach then feel free to watch this video in your spare time. This is an interview of Garry Nolan where he talks about his research into the physical effects of UFOs on humans. It's long but very interesting and based in science not some redneck talking about anal probes. https://youtu.be/ShX-WM5TiXc
  15. So you assume a conclusion before seeing the evidence? My assertion is that researchers have claimed no evidence of a string or wire. I can produce the work of the researchers who said no wire. Can you not produce the work of the researchers who said it was suspended from a wire? I hate to put it this way but this statement is misleading to say the least. I have demonstrated that photos exist that are not "fuzzy" and the motivations of aliens is not something we can really expect to understand. The idea that only country hicks make these claims is insulting to us country hicks. Again what would constitute proof? Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to us. So all of the sighing are made by liars? Dismissing the evidence as rubbish without showing why is rubbish. Why did she see it?
  16. Done done Done with some caveats, I am not sure how you would verify these things, the pictures I provided certainly show examples of unknown technology. While a terrestrial origin is improbable there is no way to prove it without actually having the objects in possession. Please show some "evidence" the object was suspended by wires other than your assertion. Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist for the U.S. Navy seems to disagree. No matter how good the evidence there will always be "debunkers" who only care about proving the sighting wrong no matter what, just like there are always true believers who think everything that cannot be readily identified must be an alien spacecraft. These extremes cannot be allowed to decide on the truth or lack thereof in the sightings. One arch debunker who worked for the military, his name escapes me at the moment but I haven't had my coffee yet and if you insist I'll look him up, but he claimed that the vast majority of UFO sighting could be shown to be slow moving meteors and comets. The statement is so ignorant it borders on the stupid and obtuse but it was claimed by a man who was so respected his opinion was seldom even questioned... Donald Howard Menzel was his name if my own memory serves me. Yet the pictures are clear enough that mistaking them for anything other than extraordinary is impossible. Sadly neither do it, it was late and I don't remember my thought processes at that moment. It depends, do we accept the evidence as presented or do we pronounce it a hoax? No third possibility exists IMHO. I include them only because historically the idea that a secret like UFOs was claimed not possible to keep due to inevitable leaks and the lack thereof. They are extraordinary, many would make the claim this means alien but they could be angels or demons, interdimensional travelers, time travelers, an unknown terrestrial technology or even an unknown terrestrial civilization or a complete hoax. One thing they cannot be is something mundane and misidentified. These pictures have been studied by better men than me, this ground effect was said be associated with the object by these researchers. I only have my own experience on this but the idea of random "things" falling off an advanced interplanetary vehicle seems improbable.
  17. I have added two phtos to this post, both are considered real, what they are is unknown... hence UFO How can evidence be given for something so extraordinary it has no way of being shown? And yet the current and past philosophy has been to assume the negative. Even though there have been sightings that were seen by multiple independent witnesses, and seen on multiple independent radars. Yet when these leaks happen the very idea of them being impossible is used to dismiss them... seems a bit circular to me. Secrets of aliens is leaked but it is this leak that is dismissed out of hand. The first photo is of a UFO taken in 1965 near Santa Ana Ca https://www.ocregister.com/2009/10/30/ocs-moment-in-ufo-history/ The second is A picture of a flying saucer photographed by farmer Paul Trent, over his farm in Minnville, Ore., on May 11, 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs While these photos aren't without some debunkers. Others disagree. Notice the ground effect under the object. I think the demand of what such evidence would be is unrealistic, what evidence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft would be sufficient? I was once told that it had to be an actual piece of a spacecraft as though pieces of alien spacecraft would be falling off randomly. I once lived under the landing zone of an airport, large commercial airliners flew over head everyday and some were so low I could have thrown a rock and hit them but no pieces ever fell off. There have however been pieces of UFOs fallen to the ground and picked up, mostly molten metal drippings. https://www.thehistoricalsociety.org/h/ufo.html
  18. I understand that but requiring proof only from those who claim something extraordinary but not from those who debunk is not quite fair. If you simply ask for evidence then no you don't have a burden of proof but if you claim the extraordinary cannot be such then I think you accept some of the burden. Far too long it's been ok to say things like no photos exist but those of unclear subjects or nothing but lights in the sky. But when evidence of the extraordinary turns up, clear photos, that must be either hoaxes or an extraordinary object. I don't think the debunkers get to say it can't be real simply because it's too good to be true. Seems to me this is nothing but deciding the outcome before the event. There are dozens if not hundreds of photos that are either something extraordinary or outright hoaxes, there is testimony that has to be either a lie or truth, no middle ground exists. From an astronaut who claims he saw a saucer shaped craft land at an american airbase and saw it filmed, saw the film, turned the film over to the gov and then it vanished to a military photographer who took film of a UFO destroying a missile shortly after launch and saw the film of the event after it happened. There are many examples, but these things are either true or not true and the cover up has cracks but the cracks are dismissed out of hand. These things are not right, you don't to claim they are not true without shouldering some sort of burden of proof for your assertion they are not real in the face of the very thing that is claimed to not exist. People have come out to claim the gov is covering something extraordinary, either this is meaningless or the assertion that such a secret cannot be kept without leaks is meaningless. It cannot be both ways.
  19. I agree that an anonymous source is not credible but people have come out with such reports who were far from anonymous and yet they are always dismissed but people who come out with equal "fervor" to debunk with nothing but their word are accepted.
  20. Yet another whistle blower that is not supposed to exist but are always dismissed as too good to be true when they do show up.
  21. Rogue planets are fascinating, Especially rocky planets with dense hydrogen atmospheres could actually harbor life with water oceans and dry land. Sara Seager of NASA has proposed this.
  22. You must live on a different planet than me.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.