A formation of strange objects filmed over India (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=99BUuq4wtBc&tid=185423). Dino-vultures imo phosphorescing and doing birdy things like claiming territory etc. What do you think?

that was frikkin awesome!
alien spaceships hovering and teleporting around
they must be dimensional beings from an alternate universe
simply incredible footage

thanks

that was frikkin awesome!
alien spaceships hovering and teleporting around
they must be dimensional beings from an alternate universe
simply incredible footage

thanksNO! Not E.T's, why would they show themselves and teleport around the foothills of India for? It's flying cryptids you donuts, responsible for the cattle mutilations and very dangerous. The aliens are the good guys and are waiting for us to figure out the conundrum before they can make contact.

oh
is there a wiki entry for cryptids? i cannot locate one.
are they from earth then? like from the core and stuff?

NO! Not E.T's, why would they show themselves and teleport around the foothills of India for? It's flying cryptids you donuts, responsible for the cattle mutilations and very dangerous. The aliens are the good guys and are waiting for us to figure out the conundrum before they can make contact.

Don't you mean it's flying donuts you cryptid?

Seriously some shakey video from in the boonies of India really doesn't equate to evidence of anything other than sensationalism. The posed "teleportation" looks no different than the firing of a flare which doesn't light up until it reaches a set distance away from where it's being fired, of course you've heard that rationale before so it's obviously to obvious to be reality right?

Well, I'm interested, anyway. I don't know about flares - looked kind of flat - but it could easily have been faked.

oh
is there a wiki entry for cryptids? i cannot locate one.
are they from earth then? like from the core and stuff?The closest is the ropen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropen) of Papua New Guinea, although this is reported to be featherless. The feathered variety is typical of the Owlman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlman) of Cornwall (near where I live btw). Incidentally, I think they mainly eat fish or cuttlefish etc from the ocean but supplement from livestock, digesting the tongue and other nutritious soft parts. The anal bore holes would be due the desire to locate the urine intact within the bladder imo, which has a high concentration of phosphorous compounds Dartmoor sheep mutilation photos (http://www.apfu.org/foia-images.html) (notice the green slurry of the intestines infront of the rear legs).

Stryder: a skeptic can call the chinese lantern, flare or fake footage all day long, but if one investigates all the cases, like Nick Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope) for example, then a pattern emerges that there is genuinely something strange going on.

Blurry out of focus footage with too much camera shake, and it's probably just flares.

T but if one investigates all the cases, like Nick Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope) for example, then a pattern emerges that there is genuinely something strange going on.

Nick Pope is a liar.

T but if one investigates all the cases, like Nick Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope) for example, then a pattern emerges that there is genuinely something strange going on.

Nick Pope is a shithead.

but if one investigates all the cases, like Nick Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope) for example, then a pattern emerges that there is genuinely something strange going on.
Are you trying to imply that Pope investigated ALL the cases?
Are you trying to imply that Pope INVESTIGATED all the cases?
Pope is a fantasist.

Pope was kicked out of MI5MoD for losing track of the objective, namely impartial investigation, when he started going the route of David Icke he became a joke.

Edit: Whooops...

Are you trying to imply that Pope investigated ALL the cases?
Are you trying to imply that Pope INVESTIGATED all the cases?
Pope is a fantasist.He was the sole officer for cataloguing incoming UFO reports for the MoD you donuts and it was his job to evaluate any possible security threats to UK airspace. The level of direct threat was deemed very low by the powers-that-be and his position was terminated as surplus to requirements. Nick Pope himself knew that a small percentage of the hundreds of reports were a genuine mystery which required further investigation. His superior officers appeared to disagree.

He was the sole officer for cataloguing incoming UFO reports for the MoD you donuts
Correct.
Except that what he often neglects to mention is that that part of his job was throwaway, an add-on to his actual job for the MoD. As in "well somebody has to do it so we'll farm it out to the office boy".

I should stress that overall, in the scheme of things, UFOs is a tiny part of my branch's business - probably not even taking up a quarter of my time

The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF activities overseas and diplomatic clearance policy for military flights abroad. A small percentage of time is spent dealing with reports from the public about alleged 'UFO' sightings and associated public correspondence. The Ministry of Defence has not investigated a case of alien abduction, crop circle formations, or animal mutilation.
http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/modpage.html


his position was terminated as surplus to requirements.
He resigned.


Nick Pope himself knew that a small percentage of the hundreds of reports were a genuine mystery which required further investigation. His superior officers appeared to disagree.
Again you're conflating "not having an (ordinary) explanation" with "it must be a real UFO".

And you missed my points completely.

1) Pope only had the opportunity to investigate the cases that were actually reported to the MoD.
2) Pope didn't have the time or the manpower to do thorough investigations - this would lead to lack of data and the conclusion I alluded to above. For example this (http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/) site gives some insight as to the, ah, professionalism of Pope's "investigations".

the demands of his other allocated functions precluded him from carrying out any kind of field investigations and he had no defined resources to carry out this function on his behalf. This factor meant that he was unable to verify estimates of direction, height, speed, and size, other than via the telephone which is an unsatisfactory substitute for a site visit and personal interview with the witnesses.
http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/modpage.html

You didn't see the tv documentary then?

P.S Compare footage with The Rendlesham Forest incident (http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/)

What's a TV? :p

Which documentary?
And why would I want to watch something aimed at the 5-second-attention-span viewer?
I have never yet come across a TV documentary that gives the full facts, or even, in most cases, the actual facts.
Even when I did own a TV I looked upon "documentaries" as "possible starting points" (much like Wiki) rather than sources of information.
Having seen so many in my youth that catered for my field of expertise that were so badly flawed I tend to regard ALL as (potentially) equally flawed and view them with suspicion and healthy pinch of salt.

For example this (http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/) site gives some insight as to the, ah, professionalism of Pope's "investigations".

Odd that Pope only got Radar data from Fylingdales, and not DRA Malvern, RAF Digby, or RAF Menwith Hill.

Also the disclaimer about local Radar was odd, given the alleged sighting from two different Airforce bases.

Ah, but then Pope is a shithead.

P.S Compare footage with The Rendlesham Forest incident (http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/)

The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. Mentioning it does nothing for your credibility.

Yup, you'd'a thunk Cottesmore might have had some info too, bearing in mind that place covers the middle of the country.

Yup, you'd'a thunk Cottesmore might have had some info too, bearing in mind that place covers the middle of the country.

Let's be honest, we are surveillance central. You'd have thought if there was something to see, we'd see it.

You'd have thought if there was something to see, we'd see it.
I wonder what Cottesmore not seeing anything implies?
Bet CSS won't go there...

The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. .......


Yup,...


who?

Well, I'm interested, anyway. I don't know about flares - looked kind of flat - but it could easily have been faked.

same here geoff.. normall CSS posts stuff thats far out there but i wonder what skeptics will say about this one! clearly not flares not airplanes. this one did perk my interest thank you CSS

Ah, but then Pope is a shithead.

This sort of discordia suggests that a Pope poo'd in your woods and didn't clean his shit up. (Which answers and old age question)

Is there any personal reason for your iteration of him "Being a shithead" or is it you just don't like intellectually dishonest people in general?

This sort of discordia suggests that a Pope poo'd in your woods and didn't clean his shit up. (Which answers and old age question)

My father and several of my friend's fathers, were in the RAF. Pope brings the services into disrepute.


Is there any personal reason for your iteration of him "Being a shithead" or is it you just don't like intellectually dishonest people in general?

Yes, because he is intellectually dishonest, and also because he uses his MOD credentials as some sort of appeal to authority, which is a fallacious technique, and brings the MOD into disrepute.

We watch the skies, and the Earth, for various different reasons, using various different methods, from Astronomy, Earth Observation, and Military Surveillance. I've worked with people and supported IT projects for each of those functions. We never saw a UFO. Not one. We did detect a secret nuclear reactor once, but that's another story.

Pope dishonestly fails to mention the HUGE array of instruments constantly looking upwards and downwards, and the terabytes of data gathered. He fails to mention our surveillance capability, and that not one aircraft takes off of lands, without that being recorded, and it's IR trail being monitored. He creates ambiguity, and then uses that to spin a 'what if' scenario, like there are unknowns here. There aren't. There's secret stuff, and misidentified stuff, and perceptual freakouts, but there are no alien craft. None.

..but there are no alien craft. None.But that's not what I'm getting at, is it? What about the glow-in-the-dark night vulture hypothesis? i.e. Unknown flying cryptids being responsible for the UFO lights seen descending into the woods in India? Or are you just as certain about there being none of these as well??

But that's not what I'm getting at, is it? What about the glow-in-the-dark night vulture hypothesis? i.e. Unknown flying cryptids being responsible for the UFO lights seen descending into the woods in India? Or are you just as certain about there being none of these as well??

That's a different story, but still, I really doubt a large, unknown creature as you describe exists. Especially as they glow in the dark, allegedly.

That's a different story, but still, I really doubt a large, unknown creature as you describe exists. Especially as they glow in the dark, allegedly.It doesn't need to be physically large to be able to produce a large glowing orb effect though, does it? BTW you're really showing your ignorance now if you haven't noticed the large increase in reports of colored lights acting in a strange UFO fashion in the past couple of years.

Here's the audio recording of the initial UFO discovery The "Halt tape" has been in the public domain since the mid-eighties and is not copyrighted. You can listen to these MP3s on your PC, they could be burned to CD etc (http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/the-halt-tape-and-transcript-rendlesham.php).
I recommend just downloading Section where UFOs are spotted [high quality MP3] [3.40mb]


One of the most important points about the tape, which has been over-looked many times, is that the animals in the forest and on a nearby farm go into a 'frenzy' only seconds before the UFO is spotted. In my opinion, this is too much of a coincidence. I had previously said, "of course the forest's animals would have been disturbed - there were numerous men running around the forest, they were shouting had bright flashlights."However now I think I was wrong to say this. Here is the section of the tape in question:

Lt. Colonel Halt: 01.48. We're hearing some strange sounds out of the farmers...
Sgt. Nevilles: Twenty eight....seven... (still operating the geiger counter)
Lt. Colonel Halt: barnyard animals. They're very, very active and making an awful lot of noise.
Sgt. Nevilles: definite pigmentation.
(Lt Englund spotted the light first, he shouts to Halt)
Lt. Colonel Halt: You saw a light? Slow down. Where, where?
Sgt. Nevilles (spots UFO too): Right on this position here. Straight ahead in between the trees.
There is no break in the tape. There are only seconds between the point where the animals are heard going into a 'frenzy' and the point where the UFO is spotted.
Is this evidence of a UFO physically interacting with the surrounding environment?

It doesn't need to be physically large to be able to produce a large glowing orb effect though, does it? BTW you're really showing your ignorance now if you haven't noticed the large increase in reports of colored lights acting in a strange UFO fashion in the past couple of years.

YOU said this creature had a six metre wingspan.

What I have noticed, is the increased popularity of Chinese Lanterns.

YOU said this creature had a six metre wingspan.

What I have noticed, is the increased popularity of Chinese Lanterns.lol

A clear case of swamp gas. :)

A clear case of swamp gas. :)Funnily enough, I've had a bubblely stomach today as well..

“ Originally Posted by phlogistician
The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. ....... ”
“ Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Yup,...

who?

Well, could be wrong, but they may be talking about the guy who claimed to be driving around with some flashing patrol car lights or something, in which case it would only be perpetrator, singular.

That's the only "hoax" related to this case I can think of.

Phlogistician and/or Dywyddyr: care to explain?

If anyone had bothered to actually read the post where I said "yup" they would (should) have noticed that it was a reply to Phlog's previous post re radar coverage.
Hence my specific mention of RAF Cottesmore, and this was acknowledged by Phlog's reply directly afterwards.

But to answer the question... How about this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml)?

As for perpetratorS, ask Phlog.

But to answer the question... How about this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml)?

As for perpetratorS, ask Phlog.

Yes, that is the case I was talking about, but there is only ONE perpetrator there.

Phlog,


Pope dishonestly fails to mention the HUGE array of instruments constantly looking upwards and downwards, and the terabytes of data gathered. He fails to mention our surveillance capability, and that not one aircraft takes off of lands, without that being recorded, and it's IR trail being monitored. He creates ambiguity, and then uses that to spin a 'what if' scenario, like there are unknowns here. There aren't. There's secret stuff, and misidentified stuff, and perceptual freakouts, but there are no alien craft. None.

While I agree that Pope picks and chooses things to fit his belief and ignores anything that threatens that belief. I would not and do not accept anything he or any ufo true believer claims as evidence for ET.

And while I agree with being skeptical and to scrutinize the details of any of these so called events.

You can not say there are no alien craft. Your claim that we are looking at and constantly monitoring the skies is true, but then you have to consider those that monitor the skies and have seen something. Which you are essentially denying. Stating that you have never seen one doesn't make it a fact that others have not seen one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16805639/A-List-of-UFO-Sightings-by-Astronomers

Many of these sightings are of unidentified. That's it. That doesn't mean that it is ET but since they are unidentified then we have to leave it at that.

Here is my problem with your statement of fact.

What would a ET spacecraft or more likely an ET probe of an million year advanced society look like. Now I realize that is the big assumption, that there is such a species. But considering the numbers, most would consider this a very real possibility.

So what if they have sent out nano-scale probes. Since we are nearing the ability ourselves and in many other fields such as stealth and even cloaking.

How can you ever know this ?

Now, if you say there is no evidence ( being extrodinary ) to prove the existence of ET then I would agree. But to say there are none is not the same.

We don't have all of the answers.

We are either alone, or not alone but not known to any others, or maybe we are known to them.

There are many reasons for them to not want to be known, and many reasons why they wouldn't care.

There could also be a situation where there are more than one. Different tactics and approach to information gathering.

We are proof that someone is exploring the cosmos, sending out our probes etc to learn more about the universe.

If there is an advanced species out there, it is absurd to think they will not do the same.

Also, considering the time factor. They could have sent a probe here that landed a million years ago.

Maybe we will find such an item at some point.

Saying there are none, is premature IMO.

So, Phlogistician, who are the perpetrators?

Look: enough with the unsubstantiated allegations, here.

The Pope does not poo in the woods.

Desist!

Look: enough with the unsubstantiated allegations, here.

The Pope does not poo in the woods.

Desist!

Pope Lupus IV? Are you so certain?

Yo Phlog! HOAXERS? Plural?

So, Phlogistician, who are the perpetrators?

Of?

Saying there are none, is premature IMO.

None visiting here.

Normally, 'absence of evidence would not equal evidence of absence', but given the amount of hardware watching the skies, if something were there to be seen, I think we'd see it.

I also think SETI should have detected their radio signals from their era of development that was similar to ours by now.

So what are we left with? Aliens are getting here before their radio signals, ... FTL Travel. Hmmm, an alien race finds a shortcut in relativity, builds a craft, travels to Earth, and then, .... well, abduct people and mutilate cattle? Given the HUGE leap in technical capability required for FTL Travel, why would they need to do such things? They'd sure'y have surveillance technology that could harvest DNA for them, micro-robots, genetically engineered virii, etc. It doesn't add up to form a coherent picture, does it?

Of?

The hoaxers you mentioned. I assumed you speaking of the Rendlesham case. That seems to be what I am talking about. What are you talking about?

The hoaxers you mentioned. I assumed you speaking of the Rendlesham case. That seems to be what I am talking about. What are you talking about?

You could have quoted my post, making it easier to know what you were talking about, ...

Meanwhile;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml

You do realise the simplest test for UFOlogy magazines and their credibility of actually following up stories is easily tested, in fact it's tested constantly by skeptic's, I mean who do you think comes up with the stories and writes the articles, People that actually saw something???

Phlog,


Originally Posted by jpappl

Saying there are none, is premature IMO. ”

None visiting here.


Agreed, no extrodinary evidence of that at least.


Normally, 'absence of evidence would not equal evidence of absence', but given the amount of hardware watching the skies, if something were there to be seen, I think we'd see it.

Well what I was getting at is that there could be an alien probe buried 50 feet in mud that landed here 100,000 years ago.

There could be nano-sized probes in our space right now but there could also be an invisible elf in my pocket.

The speculation is endless because the possibilities are endless. And time is a very interesting and important factor here because they could have come and gone a million years ago.

Time will only tell, the discovery is either there to be made or not.


So what are we left with? Aliens are getting here before their radio signals, ... FTL Travel. Hmmm, an alien race finds a shortcut in relativity, builds a craft, travels to Earth, and then, .... well, abduct people and mutilate cattle?

LOL, yes it's amazing how far some have taken lights in the sky and run with it.


Given the HUGE leap in technical capability required for FTL Travel, why would they need to do such things? They'd sure'y have surveillance technology that could harvest DNA for them, micro-robots, genetically engineered virii, etc. It doesn't add up to form a coherent picture, does it?

Which is why we are more likely to encounter a probe and not have a meeting with green men on the white house lawn.

I am sure they would have done similar things as us considering the predicament. Send out probes, local manned travel. Monitor the skies.

Unless they have a way to cheat the laws of physics, which I am not willing to assing them such magical qualities.

But you hit the nail on the head IMO regarding the way they would go about obtaining information of a far away planet, and that would be to send probes.

Which is why I suggested they may be out there, and know about us or not. But they have no need to or have no way to get here other than by unmanned probes. One could be on it's way now not to be discovered for 50 years. Who knows.

Meanwhile;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml


you are one tired old hack, aint ya?

/sneer

@ (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85438)

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9834/regioncapture.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident#Scepticism)

now
despite conde's disavowal of original acct (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.htm), phlog insists that conde stick to his original story.

it blows the fucking mind how utterly irrational and pathological pseudoskeptics can get.

Here's the audio recording of the initial UFO discovery

i see you highlight this.....

One of the most important points about the tape, which has been over-looked many times, is that the animals in the forest and on a nearby farm go into a 'frenzy' only seconds before the UFO is spotted. In my opinion, this is too much of a coincidence............


you seem to support the correlation be pushed here. can you substantiate?
this is of course a farm situated near an raf base, correct? do we have any info on animal behaviors when terrestrial crafts fly by?

to people without an open mind its all a hoax and it wouldnt matter who said it there credibility will be gone. the fact that there are cases out there less than 5% that are real UFO sightings. unknown flying objects. that have all the data that skeptics would want. a credible witness mass witnesses that describe the same exact thing. police and radar conformation yet still not good enough. the only think that will make skeptics believes " the ones who are fucking restarted" would be a ufo landing in broad daylight and sit there untill they could touch it.. i had an idiot when i was in track that said i didnt run a 48sec 400 in highschool even tho the electronic gun clocked me at that along with about 30 more people he still said they were all wrong

a credible witness mass witnesses that describe the same exact thing
Define "credible witness".
You are aware that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, I take it.


police and radar conformation
Police "confirmation"? How does that make your "point"?
Are you also aware that radar can (and does) generate false returns, bounce off transient atmospheric anomalies (temperature inversions etc.) and the like?

Are you also aware that radar can (and does) generate false returns, bounce off transient atmospheric anomalies (temperature inversions etc.) and the like?


the crackpots scurry out of sci's nook's and cranny's like a frikkin infestation

in order to have that be a meaningful proposition it would behoove you to substantiate to a statistically significant rate

in order to have that be a meaningful proposition it would behoove you to substantiate to a statistically significant rate
Or actual knowledge. :rolleyes:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=radar+false+returns

Or actual knowledge. :rolleyes:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=radar+false+returns


you cannot be serious. this "actual knowledge" is represented by a page full of google links of questionable relevance? :D

lemme ask you this, do you thank god every time you safely land at say...a busy airport?

you cannot be serious. this "actual knowledge" is represented by a page full of google links of questionable relevance? :D
No. MY actual knowledge is actual knowledge of radars. The relevance of the links is hardly questionable since they concern the reality of false returns.


lemme ask you this, do you thank god every time you safely land at say...a busy airport?
No. I thank the designer of the aircraft and the maintenance crew. :rolleyes:

..... since they concern the reality of false returns.


but surely that is not what is being questioned here, is it? lets revisit....


in order to have that be a meaningful proposition it would behoove you to substantiate to a statistically significant rate


lemme simplify... does radar work (http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex10.en.html) more often than not?

False Alarm Rate (http://radarsystems.icxt.com/technology/technical-notes/radar-performance/)

From the foregoing description, it seems that the detection range could be increased by lowering the detection threshold to "see" lower signal levels. While this is true, the noise environment described means that, on any given look, there is a finite probability that a noise spike could cross the threshold, causing a false alarm. Thus exists the classical battle between sensitivity and false alarms; that is, the desire to increase the Probability of Detection is offset by the resulting increase in the Probability of False Alarms. The latter is generally quantified in time by using the parameter False Alarm Rate (FAR), which expresses the false alarm probability as a function of time. Thus, all comprehensive radar specifications contain a FAR requirement, say 2 or 3 per day, so that a radar operator is not unduly distracted attending to an alarm that doesn’t really exist. This becomes very important in security systems which combine many radars for perimeter or border protection over long distances, because higher false alarm rates require more responders to chase down the cause of an alarm.

wanna elaborate on the bolded, mr actual knowledge? perhaps more google links?

that article summarizes nicely...

This technical note has presented the major performance parameters which describe how well a radar performs. The design of a radar is primarily one of performance tradeoffs, involving range resolution, search volume, clutter rejection, false alarm rate and revisit time. These issues must be balanced against target types, frequency allocation regulations, size, weight, cost, power and environmental considerations, such as rain, snow, operating temperatures, vibration and shock. A well designed radar represents a delicate balance of many seemingly incompatible factors.

ja
reasonable expectations


No. I thank the designer of the aircraft and the maintenance crew.

i thank people like this since i aint landing in bumfuck peoria....


"Heathrow"

"Bovingdon,BAW155 at 8,ICE451 at 9,SHT2X at 10 and BMA6TW at 11"

Which is read back by the LL Director

"London,BAW155,heading 155,descending FL150"

"BAW155,roger,continue on the heading,descend FL110"

"FL110,BAW155,any holding?"

"At the moment less than 5 minutes,speed is at your discretion"

"OK,coming back to 250knots"

"Roger"

"London,ICE451,heading 155,passing 197,for 150"

"ICE451,thank you,on the heading,reduce to 250kts,delays 5 minutes at most"

"On the heading,speed 250 ICE451"

At this moment an SS outbound calls us,handed over from SS Director climbing to FL70,which is the min stack level,we have to climb it to 160 and hand over to LMS (London Middle Sector).

"London,it`s the GOE106,climbing level 70,requesting higher"

It`s on a Compton SID,so as we`ve come down to FL110 on the LL inbounds we can go up to 100 underneath.

"GOE,106,roger,climb FL100,fly radar heading 265"

"Climb FL100,heading 265,GOE106"

We have put this traffic on a heading,we have our inbound traffic on a heading as well,and by monitoring the outbound traffic`s rate of climb,and the fact that our inbounds are out of 160,I am happy to keep it going,the sooner we get the level change on the conflicting traffic,the sooner the problem is solved.

"GOE106,climb FL160,good rate through 120"

By adding the phrase good rate on the end,we expect the pilot to increase the rate of climb,beyond his normal climb rate.

"Climb 160,good rate through 120,GOE106"

"BAW155,Descend FL80"

"Descend FL80,BAW155"

"ICE451,Descend FL110"

The level the preceeding aircraft,the BAW155 is out of

"Down to 110,ICE451"

"London BAW172,passing 2200 on a WOBUN"

/snik..er

Thus, all comprehensive radar specifications contain a FAR requirement, say 2 or 3 per day, so that a radar operator is not unduly distracted attending to an alarm that doesn’t really exist
Which indicates that the acceptable rate of false returns varies with operator requirements.
You think any military is going to publish their acceptable rate in open-source documents?
The point was that false returns can and do exist.
Even from the above example, how many "UFO" reports could be spawned with 2 or 3 false returns per day?

Even from the above example, how many "UFO" reports could be spawned with 2 or 3 false returns per day?


umm
2 or 3? :confused:

in anycase, that shit is meaningless without a baseline figure for comparison...
2 or 3 fars per_______readings

what the hell is an "open source doc"?

umm
2 or 3? :confused:

comprehensive radar specifications contain a FAR requirement, say 2 or 3 per day,
Which bit did you not read?


2 or 3 fars per_______readings
You don't think radars operate more or less 24/7? :rolleyes:
Especially military ones.
That's why the FAR is given by time not number of readings.


what the hell is an "open source doc"?
Non-classified. Available to the public.

Which bit did you not read?


jesus wept
you asked a question...


how many "UFO" reports could be spawned with 2 or 3 false returns per day?


i replied "2 or 3" (rather incredulously hence the goddamn question mark)


You don't think radars operate more or less 24/7? :rolleyes:
Especially military ones.

hehe
so?


That's why the FAR is given by time not number of readings.


prove it. give me a citation other than the one i bolded and quoted


http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/5619/farcalc.jpg

this (http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex36.en.html) is prt and rather than guess what "rangecells" is, i'll ask you, mr actual knowledge


Non-classified. Available to the public.


this is what i ask of all woo woos (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=p75&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22open+source+document%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)...stick to conventional terminology. thanks

a rate is the frequency an event is held to occur
a rate is the frequency an event is held to occur over time?

a rate is expressed as a percentage?
a rate is expressed as a percentage of _______?

/confused

i shall ask james to weigh in as i do not trust that dwhatever fellow

jesus wept
you asked a question...
i replied "2 or 3" (rather incredulously hence the goddamn question mark)
I thought you were questioning the source of the "2 or 3"


hehe
so?
It's quite simple: the FAR is nothing to do with the number of readings it's to do with total system operating time.


prove it. give me a citation other than the one i bolded and quoted
Pick one
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Radar+false+alarm+rate
As your own source (and the next you gave) states the FAR is a function of signal and noise - there's always background noise, and interference.


this is prt and rather than guess what "rangecells" is, i'll ask you, mr actual knowledge
It's the smallest distance increment a radar is capable of detecting. And THAT equation also tells you it's a time-based rate. PRT is pulse repetition time, the inverse of the PRF (frequency).


this is what i ask of all woo woos...stick to conventional terminology. thanks
Unfortunately for you that was conventional terminology. :rolleyes:

the term "open" refers to overt, publicly available sources (as opposed to covert or classified sources); it is not related to open-source software or public intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_intelligence

bah
good enough, dywyddyr

/smile

Good enough?
Pfft, 9/10 at least! :p

to whom it may concern
please ban me immediately if you see me doing any math
think of it as a public service

:worship:

you are one tired old hack, aint ya?

/sneer


Thank you for that line. I got a laugh out of that! Okay, a few.


@ (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85438)

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9834/regioncapture.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident#Scepticism)

now
despite conde's disavowal of original acct (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.htm), phlog insists that conde stick to his original story.

it blows the fucking mind how utterly irrational and pathological pseudoskeptics can get.

What can I say? Interesting...

And whatever happened to the frickin lighthouse? I thought eveyone beat that one to death a long time ago. Oh, wait, it WAS the lighthouse, but now it's this guy?

Makes a lotta sense.

No, actually, it doesn't, but that's only because I don't understand science. If I did, then the logic of the "skeptical inquirers" would make total sense.

You could have quoted my post, making it easier to know what you were talking about, ...



I did quote (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2583497&postcount=33) you but you glossed over it or ignored it. Gustav asked you even before that and you didn't respond.

I still don't see how you get "The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. ......."

There is only one person that I can see who could be called a hoaxer. And your declaration of "case dismissed" is a bit premature.

I did quote (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2583497&postcount=33) you but you glossed over it or ignored it. Gustav asked you even before that and you didn't respond.

You quoted Gustav quoting me. It was messy, and I didn't see it, because the first thing I saw was 'Originally posted by Gustav', so why would I think the next portion would be addressed to me? If you want answering, be specific. Your next post didn't quote anything.

Threads diverge, you need to address which part of the thread you want addressing.

Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?

You quoted Gustav quoting me. It was messy, and I didn't see it, because the first thing I saw was 'Originally posted by Gustav', so why would I think the next portion would be addressed to me? If you want answering, be specific. Your next post didn't quote anything.

Threads diverge, you need to address which part of the thread you want addressing.

Pardon. http://emoticons4u.com/love/1227.gif


Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?

No. I was already familiar with the case you referred to. I was just wondering why you originally said perpetrators, implying that there was more than one person involved in this so-called hoax.

No. I was already familiar with the case you referred to. I was just wondering why you originally said perpetrators, implying that there was more than one person involved in this so-called hoax.

Ah, it was an attempt a nit pick, eh?

EPIC FAIL.

Ah, it was an attempt a nit pick, eh?



No. It was an attempt to determine what the heck you were talking about. Only until you finally posted the link to the same story I was thinking of did you confirm for me what you were referring to.


EPIC FAIL.

In what way have I failed, and how was it "epic"?

No. It was an attempt to determine what the heck you were talking about. Only until you finally posted the link to the same story I was thinking of did you confirm for me what you were referring to.



In what way have I failed, and how was it "epic"?

Rendlesham has been discussed and debunked several times on this forum. I'm not going to trot out the refutations every time someone brings it up.

Do your own research. That was your failure. NOT doing your own research.

Rendlesham has been discussed and debunked several times on this forum. I'm not going to trot out the refutations every time someone brings it up.

Do your own research. That was your failure. NOT doing your own research.

Okay, mumsy.

My failure was not doing any research. Well, I had heard the lighthouse was the culprit, as I indicated in a previous post. That seemed like the debunking du jour. Or the debunking du ans. Pardonnez moi to all you French speaking zealots if I have abused your language inappropriately!

And then I heard mention once or twice about the flashy lights of the pseudo police car. How fitting, being in the pseudoscience section! I always kinda thought that one sounded a little spurious and off the cuff. Maybe I was wrong.

I'm wondering which of these scientifically sound hypotheses, errrr, facts, I should consider as valid. They both look so good, but I realize only one can be certain.

Help me.

Help me.

No. Do your own research.

No. Do your own research.

Naturally, I was being sarcastic. I'm afraid asking for anything more than a clarification (which is what I originally did) from you would undoubtedly set me back significantly.

I was already familiar, again, with that story. You confused me by saying perpetratorS, that's all. You haven't yet said that you made a mistake and meant only ONE perpetrator. Instead of admitting of that, you accuse me of trying to nit-pick and further accuse me of not doing my own research, in a manner which is quite typical of you, and other "right-thinking" individuals like you.


Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?

I would assume if I threw out a quick allegation of something without providing any additional info, and you wanted to know what I was talking about, you would probably angrily demand to see a source, saying something like "put up or shut up!" or "provide a link or a source or admit you're a pseudoscientific woo-woo" or thereabouts. Is that an accurate description of something you would most likely say? My sincere apologies if I assume wrongly.

Perhaps I wouldn't have harped on it if you had answered Gustav when he asked you the first time?




The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. .......
who?

Oh, well.

if you think that the vast universe of 13.6 billions light-years space only occupied by living creatures on planet earth, then you prove yourself to be selfish and arrogant.the noble is "If you can make it, why other can't make it?"

Yo Phlog! HOAXERS? Plural?

sure aliens... and some people of the south east (like indonesia) worship planes because they gave them canned corn and beans and want them to come back. I'll give Indian's more credibility tho because they after all came up with the concept of zero or nothingness which I believe is a term most people need to better understand.

Why are you conflating Indians and Indonesia?

sure aliens... and some people of the south east (like indonesia) worship planes because they gave them canned corn and beans and want them to come back. I'll give Indian's more credibility tho because they after all came up with the concept of zero or nothingness which I believe is a term most people need to better understand.

How so?
What does the concept of zero have to do with aliens?

i guess they invented the wheel. the wheel looks like a zero. :p

How so?
What does the concept of zero have to do with aliens?
Duh! It's simple: ZERO is the number of aliens we know of.

that is so cool!!!!!111!!!

Duh! It's simple: ZERO is the number of aliens we know of.


I dont know much, but would like top hear your defence about the Bible (code?) and its references to the Anunnaki and the Nephilim. Are they not reptile forms of humans resembling 'Gremlins' who created Adam from dust on the 7th day that came from a so called 10th/12th planet? I think the 12th planet is a theory, but I'm looking for solid data about these beings being referenced in the Bible. Is it all theory from some kind of code? Or are they really mentioned as beings who also believed in a creator of all being? I also read there are many tablets found from Mesopotamia mapping the constellations giving proof to their existence.
too much info, i think, i dunno

I dont know much, but would like top hear your defence about the Bible (code?)
If by "Bible Code" you're referring to the so-called predictions encoded in the text there's no way I'm going to defend it. :D It's rubbish, and was even denounced by the guy who did the actual work on it.


and its references to the Anunnaki and the Nephilim. Are they not reptile forms of humans resembling 'Gremlins' who created Adam from dust on the 7th day that came from a so called 10th/12th planet? I think the 12th planet is a theory, but I'm looking for solid data about these beings being referenced in the Bible. Is it all theory from some kind of code? Or are they really mentioned as beings who also believed in a creator of all being? I also read there are many tablets found from Mesopotamia mapping the constellations giving proof to their existence.
too much info, i think, i dunno
As far as the "12th planet" is concerned, that, too, is rubbish. You may want to Google for Zecharia Sitchin (http://www.sitchin.com/) and his crackpot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin#Criticisms) "theories".
Sitchin is in the mould of Velikovsky, Hapgood &c: more concerned with MAKING* fact fit legend, rather than actually discovering the truth.

* Even to the extent of inventing their own "data".

Whoa, after reading what that crackpot had to say, I agree it does sound like a bunch of unsubstantiated crap of just theories.

But what I wanna know is...Are those 'aliens' mentioned in the Bible by those names?

Ah, the Nephilim are (twice):
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Nephilim&qs_version=NIV
but Annunaki aren't.
That name is Sumerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki), not Hebrew.

To give more idea of the crackpottery, try here (http://www.sherryshriner.net/annunaki.htm).
From the first page...

Annunaki in the Bible Codes- Genesis 25:32
Also known as Jedi, or Nephilim

Jedi? JEDI!!??! :eek: :D

Duh! It's simple: ZERO is the number of aliens we know of.

I dont know your religious nature. But I'm going to state that with evidence pointed out in the Bible, we 'know' now there is existence of other lifeforms non-resident to Earth. Therefore proving your statement wrong? :D


ps. dont kill me

Dywyddyr


Annunaki in the Bible Codes- Genesis 25:32
Also known as Jedi, or Nephilim ”

Jedi? JEDI!!??!

LOFL. This is so classic.

Why does everyone try to create or make up answers to questions that we can't answer yet.

I don't understand how people can delude themselves to this degree. The ones who peddle it for money aren't as scary IMO. Just because they most likely don't believe it either.

I am interested in what the evidence is for advanced ET and truly hope we find some. I keep an open mind and have found somethings that are very interesting and truly UFO but also can't be only considered ET, fact is nobody knows.

So don't just make up crap.

You go from being ignorant to having a mental illness.

evidence pointed out in the Bible

This is evidence ?

Not to me.

I dont know your religious nature. But I'm going to state that with evidence pointed out in the Bible, we 'know' now there is existence of other lifeforms non-resident to Earth. Therefore proving your statement wrong? :D


ps. dont kill me
I don't have a religious nature. :p
And no, even with the bible we don't know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), it's a belief (by definition), i.e. we're only taking someone else's word for it. :)

This is evidence ?

Not to me.

how about the discovered tablets than in ancient Mesopotamia? Are they theory too? Or just their interpretations are theory. Who made them?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

how about the discovered tablets than in ancient Mesopotamia? Are they theory too? Or just their interpretations are theory. Who made them?

What about the tablets proves the existence of advanced ET ?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Whose?
Faith in what?
And I bet I could find other ways of disturbing you...

& Dyw

I just want to state that I never heard of Z. Sitchin until no more than 2 weeks ago. Yet since 2007, I conjured up similar theory contradicting natural evolution in my own head because I have the Eye of (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0251/pg_10) Knowledge (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0576/pg_11)

I just want to state that I never heard of Z. Sitchin until no more than 2 weeks ago. Yet since 2007, I conjured up similar theory contradicting natural evolution in my own head because I have the Eye of (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0251/pg_10) Knowledge (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0576/pg_11)

See post # 88

What about the tablets proves the existence of advanced ET ?


nothing. just theory :rolleyes: my bad

Duh! It's simple: ZERO is the number of aliens we know of.

there's the sirians, the pleiadians, the annunnaki... there's countless aliens. my least favorite are the greys.

there's the sirians, the pleiadians, the annunnaki... there's countless aliens. my least favorite are the greys.
Hmm, let's see.
Sirians?
I take you don't mean the people from Syria? No? Ok, in which case we don't know that they actually exist.
Pleiadians? Again no evidence of their existence.
Annunaki? Again, no evidence.
Greys? Guess. Go on. It'll be fun. - No evidence.

We don't KNOW of the existence of ANY aliens. The ones listed above are the products of fevered minds, drugs, drunkenness, crackpots or money-grabbing fantasists. (Or a combination of those things listed).

Hmm, let's see.
Sirians?
I take you don't mean the people from Syria? No? Ok, in which case we don't know that they actually exist.
Pleiadians? Again no evidence of their existence.
Annunaki? Again, no evidence.
Greys? Guess. Go on. It'll be fun. - No evidence.

We don't KNOW of the existence of ANY aliens. The ones listed above are the products of fevered minds, drugs, drunkenness, crackpots or money-grabbing fantasists. (Or a combination of those things listed).

there's plenty of evidence. plus i've been on a sirian ship. it was awesome. :zzz:

you gotta open your mind. then they'll take you aboard. :rolleyes:

there's plenty of evidence.
Nope.


plus i've been on a sirian ship. it was awesome.
My sincere apologies. I hadn't quite realised the depth of your delusion.


you gotta open your mind. then they'll take you aboard. :rolleyes:
Riight.

You must keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
James Oberg.

Someone here appears to have gone too far...

Nope.



And I guess the Egyptians were carving imaginations for murals of Anubis. Those dumb fcukers. You just cant take the word of history because just like us, someday we will be history. And No one will believe us in the future

And I guess the Egyptians were carving imaginations for murals of Anubis.
Is there any evidence Anubis was anything more than imagination?


Those dumb fcukers.
In the right place imagination is a great thing. I'm actually quite fond of Egyptian mythology.


You just cant take the word of history because just like us, someday we will be history. And No one will believe us in the future
Huh?
It depends what we leave behind, doesn't it?
If we leave little but multiple copies of Goldilocks & the Three Bears do you expect them to take us seriously?
On the other hand if they come across Feynman's books they'd have a different picture.

Is there any evidence Anubis was anything more than imagination?

Well you'd know than of scriptures of advanced technology like cell phones and hoverships, if you mean what you say below.



In the right place imagination is a great thing. I'm actually quite fond of Egyptian mythology.



Huh?
It depends what we leave behind, doesn't it?
If we leave little but multiple copies of Goldilocks & the Three Bears do you expect them to take us seriously?
On the other hand if they come across Feynman's books they'd have a different picture.

We will be leaving behind pennies nickels and dimes of Presidents faces with the words, In God We Trust engraved on them. Just like the ancient arabs?/romans? did with coins of 'MHTMD' engraved on them. Thus making an archeologist theorize that these were Gods? In the event of discovering Fehmans physics contributions, This will not provide that were an intelligent being, because we will no longer be here. :D ?


Im trying ma man

Well you'd know than of scriptures of advanced technology like cell phones and hoverships, if you mean what you say below.
Um, no. That's a modern perspective on what they wrote.
Or would you claim that people in the future would use Goldilocks as evidence of us genetically manipulating bears?


We will be leaving behind pennies nickels and dimes of Presidents faces with the words, In God We Trust engraved on them.
You might. I wouldn't. None of my coins have that on them. :p


Just like the ancient arabs?/romans? did with coins of 'MHTMD' engraved on them. Thus making an archeologist theorize that these were Gods?
Do archaeologists theorise Caesar was a god?


In the event of discovering Fehmans physics contributions, This will not provide that were an intelligent being, because we will no longer be here. :D ?
It would let them know we knew physics.

Dino-vultures imo phosphorescing and doing birdy things like claiming territory etc. What do you think?

I believe you have posted this under a very subjective reason. Whilst the footage is undenyably interesting, it is yet, like everything else, subject to rational thought.

The rationality is that the video has either been tampered with, or the light have a reasonable explanation. The unlikely scenario, is that they are alien by origin, for the very distance to travel great distances far exceeds the spacecraft engine, using conventional wisdom, let alone the mind-numbingly difficult range of allowing one species to find another in a universe as infinite as our own, is like trying to find a needle in an infinite haystack.

New footage from the UK: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3761177/UFO-over-motorway-brin-broad-daylight.html

A formation of strange objects filmed over India (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=99BUuq4wtBc&tid=185423). Dino-vultures imo phosphorescing and doing birdy things like claiming territory etc. What do you think?

link is broke now is it possible to find another? tried youtube but dont know what im looking for

link is broke now is it possible to find another? tried youtube but dont know what im looking forI've found it again

ufo South India 23/01/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZpFDUXx-jw&feature=player_detailpage)

New footage from the UK: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3761177/UFO-over-motorway-brin-broad-daylight.html

That's not even a good hoax.

I've found it again

ufo South India 23/01/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZpFDUXx-jw&feature=player_detailpage)

thank you.. that is kind of puzzling to say the least

That's not even a good hoax.Yeah, I have to agree with you for once. Now that I've re-seen the Indian footage the other is easily seen to be 'too good' to be true in some respects.

thank you.. that is kind of puzzling to say the leastWatch this cctv footage of a glowing orb which suddenly flaps it's wings and bobs it's head, fast forward to time=52 seconds.

Glowing orb which suddenly flaps it's wings (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/179806-new-lanark-ghost-captured-on-cctv/)

A formation of strange objects filmed over India (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=99BUuq4wtBc&tid=185423). Dino-vultures imo phosphorescing and doing birdy things like claiming territory etc. What do you think?

its no longer showing because of third party infringment rights.

That's a different story, but still, I really doubt a large, unknown creature as you describe exists. Especially as they glow in the dark, allegedly.

I don't know about glow in the dark flying birds. But I did witness with two others a cryptic bird that was unusually large. I was in my late teens and I'm not a small person. well over five foot.

I was on a balcony feeding seguals when this large gray white bird flew down and snatched a hot dog out of my hand. It looked like by beak a over sized swan. with a long neck. this happen in corpus cristi , tx.

scared us so bad we platered ourselves against the sliding glass door fearing for our lives. It was way bigger than me.

I don't know about glow in the dark flying birds. But I did witness with two others a cryptic bird that was unusually large. I was in my late teens and I'm not a small person. well over five foot.

I was on a balcony feeding seguals when this large gray white bird flew down and snatched a hot dog out of my hand. It looked like by beak a over sized swan. with a long neck. this happen in corpus cristi , tx.

scared us so bad we platered ourselves against the sliding glass door fearing for our lives. It was way bigger than me.

Yeah that's a Herren.

? They'd (aliens)sure'y have surveillance technology that could harvest DNA for them, micro-robots, genetically engineered virii, etc. It doesn't add up to form a coherent picture, does it?

Actually I think that's what one famous "abductee" used to say. Something to the effect of: the Aliens we see are simply the "robots" of a more advanced being. Their humanoid biological aspects are more of a suit to enable the "worker" beings to function in this type of environment..Or some such weirdness.

Actually I think that's what one famous "abductee" used to say. Something to the effect of: the Aliens we see are simply the "robots" of a more advanced being. Their humanoid biological aspects are more of a suit to enable the "worker" beings to function in this type of environment..Or some such weirdness.

That wouldn't be such a bad idea actually. If you want something to survive very high speeds maybe you would make a robot first.

If you want something to survive very high speeds maybe you would make a robot first.
Why?
How would building a robot help "something" survive at high speed?

Why?
How would building a robot help "something" survive at high speed?

You could build it from materials that can survive the various high speed barriers that you hit. We already do that, we build a submarine to survive deep water, we build robots to go into radioactive areas. It's just a natural progression.

You could build it from materials that can survive the various high speed barriers that you hit.
What "high speed barriers"?
How does building a robot help a vehicle survive?


We already do that, we build a submarine to survive deep water
WTF does that have to do with robots or speed?


we build robots to go into radioactive areas. It's just a natural progression.
WTF does that have to do with speed?

What "high speed barriers"?
How does building a robot help a vehicle survive?


WTF does that have to do with robots or speed?


WTF does that have to do with speed?

That's a bit circular isn't it? Why should I tell you? You haven't got past the green light, and the red light yet to win a smartie. Now you want to know about space travel. You need to walk upright before you can skip along.

That's a bit circular isn't it?
Is it?
You're the one that suggested making robots...


Why should I tell you?
So this is yet one more unsupported claim from you?
Fair enough.


You haven't got past the green light, and the red light yet to win a smartie. Now you want to know about space travel. You need to walk upright before you can skip along.
Yeah yeah. More inane (and unsupported) claims from you.

You either need to stop posting crap (preferable solution) or at least make some attempt to justify it.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.

Is it?
You're the one that suggested making robots...


So this is yet one more unsupported claim from you?
Fair enough.


Yeah yeah. More inane (and unsupported) claims from you.

You either need to stop posting crap (preferable solution) or at least make some attempt to justify it.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.

I would justify it in the mind of a person who knows what I am talking about... which is.. nobody. Because it's too far into my theory. In fact it's probably the final part.

I would justify it in the mind of a person who knows what I am talking about... which is.. nobody. Because it's too far into my theory.
Like I said: More inane (and unsupported) claims from you.

I don't know about glow in the dark flying birds. But I did witness with two others a cryptic bird that was unusually large. I was in my late teens and I'm not a small person. well over five foot.

I was on a balcony feeding seguals when this large gray white bird flew down and snatched a hot dog out of my hand. It looked like by beak a over sized swan. with a long neck. this happen in corpus cristi , tx.

scared us so bad we platered ourselves against the sliding glass door fearing for our lives. It was way bigger than me.Great story whynot! Check this one out Hessdalen lights Norway (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198044&st=0)