View Full Version : The Washington National Airport Sightings
UFO believers are just... nuts, right?
In the words of Read Only, they are ''gullible'' and stupid. Of course, many people attending this site in fury against the believers have said worse.
But we don't believe in these things for no reason. When asked to cite evidence, we can actually cite hundreds of cases which are valid cases of evidence, but when we do, we are confronted with the usual ''you haven't provided evidence.''
In the modern day age of texting... LOL
Of course what we give is evidence. It might not be absolute proof, but it is tantalizing evidence nonetheless. One case, which is undisputed in its authenticity, is the Washinton 1952 sighting of several saucer shaped craft over washington and the white house.
The White House must have a selective memory for this event, considering there most recent statement saying there was absolutely no evidence that alien civilizations have been visiting the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident
taken are excerpts from wiki
Barnes had two controllers check Nugent's radar; they found that it was working normally. Barnes then called National Airport's other radar center; the controller there, Howard Cocklin, told Barnes that he also had the objects on his radarscope. Furthermore, Cocklin said that by looking out of the control tower window he could see one of the objects:
"a bright orange light. I can't tell what's behind it" (Clark, 653).
Airman William Brady, who was in the tower, then saw an "object which appeared to be like an orange ball of fire, trailing a tail . . . [it was] unlike anything I had ever seen before."
As Brady tried to alert the other personnel in the tower, the strange object "took off at an unbelievable speed." Meanwhile, another person in the National Airport control tower reported seeing "an orange disk about 3,000 feet altitude". On one of the airport's runways, S.C. Pierman, a Capital Airlines pilot, was waiting in the cockpit of his DC-4 for permission to take off. After spotting what he believed to be a meteor, he was told that the control tower's radar had picked up unknown objects closing in on his position. Pierman observed six objects — "white, tailless, fast-moving lights" — over a 14-minute period (Clark, 655). Pierman was in radio contact with Barnes during his sighting, and Barnes later related that "each sighting coincided with a pip we could see near his plane. When he reported that the light streaked off at a high speed, it disappeared on our scope."
The object vanished in all three radar centers at the same time (Ruppelt, p. 160). At 3 a.m., shortly before two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington, all of the objects vanished from the radar at National Airport. However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned, which convinced Barnes that "the UFOs were monitoring radio traffic and behaving accordingly" (Clark, 656). The objects were last detected by radar at 5:30 a.m. Around sunrise, E.W. Chambers, a civilian radio engineer in Washington's suburbs, observed "five huge disks circling in a loose formation. They tilted upward and left on a steep ascent."
The officials working at the time tried to account the radar blips as being due to ''bad weather''.... yeah right. How long did it take them to make that story up? Because no objects were actually seen, right?
two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar pips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts (Peebles, 76). However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter.
Suggests intelligence behind the objects.
So how long will skeptics honestly keep the cherade up, that those who believe, believe for no good reason and are nothing but a bunch of unintelligent crackpots, who are niave and without good judgement?
The 1952 case is the best reported UFO case. It cannot be denied in any shape or form. The nature of the event is spectacular as well.
Here is original video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D326UXwubKA&feature=related
ughaibu
11-25-11, 03:43 AM
So how long will skeptics honestly keep the cherade up, that those who believe, believe for no good reason and are nothing but a bunch of unintelligent crackpots, who are niave and without good judgement?I expect that most people think that the question is unimportant. What's your view concerning importance?
I expect that most people think that the question is unimportant. What's your view concerning importance?
Well, it is annoying to say the least, that there should be such a myth that the people who believe in UFO's cannot be trusted at all. And should be kept at arms length in case our disease of stupidity might rub off on others :rolleyes:
The point is, is that the question is rhetorical. It should not need or require an answer.
ughaibu
11-25-11, 04:02 AM
Well, it is annoying to say the least, that there should be such a myth that the people who believe in UFO's cannot be trusted at all. And should be kept at arms length in case our disease of stupidity might rub off on othersI dont suppose that many people think that. Have you conducted a poll, or have you alternative evidence for that claim?
The point is, is that the question is rhetorical. It should not need or require an answer.Do you mean this question; "UFO believers are just... nuts, right?" If so, what's the point of this thread? If not, what question do you mean?
In any case, what's your view on the importance of whether or not one believes in UFOs, whatever the believer takes that to mean?
I dont suppose that many people think that. Have you conducted a poll, or have you alternative evidence for that claim?Do you mean this question; "UFO believers are just... nuts, right?" If so, what's the point of this thread? If not, what question do you mean?
In any case, what's your view on the importance of whether or not one believes in UFOs, whatever the believer takes that to mean?
Oh... considering how many skeptics I have just read conferring with each other concerning UFOlogists as ''nuts'' and ''crackpots'' in the neighbouring thread, I'd like to see that theory put to the test.
To be proven wrong would delight me incredibly.
Read-Only
12-03-11, 08:15 AM
UFO believers are just... nuts, right?
In the words of Read Only, they are ''gullible'' and stupid. Of course, many people attending this site in fury against the believers have said worse.
Listen, Bub, if you are going to attempt to talk about what I said, at least PAY ATTENTION to what I actually said!!!!!!:mad: (But your lack of attention to detail IS a hallmark of most of you UFOlogists anyway. :shrug: )
Nowhere, anywhere did I ever say you and your ilk were "stupid." However, I did say "gullible" and "ignorant" - the latter word meaning "not knowing something" which is a VERY common condition in the world. And that leads to many wild and sometimes nutty conclusions.
Listen, Bub, if you are going to attempt to talk about what I said, at least PAY ATTENTION to what I actually said!!!!!!:mad: (But your lack of attention to detail IS a hallmark of most of you UFOlogists anyway. :shrug: )
Nowhere, anywhere did I ever say you and your ilk were "stupid." However, I did say "gullible" and "ignorant" - the latter word meaning "not knowing something" which is a VERY common condition in the world. And that leads to many wild and sometimes nutty conclusions.
Don't play games with me. Fair enough, you might not have used the word ''stupid'' but since you are defending people like phlog or maybe even Ophiliote who are quite clearly attacking the intelligence of UFO believers, who can't help but wonder if you fall into the same catagory?
Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this?
Aqueous Id
12-03-11, 08:29 AM
If the question is: do lights in the sky imply the existence of aliens, i would say no. Since aliens (as the term commonly is used) are ideas created by ingenious fantasy writers such as Asimov and Wells. Without their inspiration, it is not likely that this concept would exist in the pubic psyche.
What would these objects be called otherwise? Meteors? Who knows.
If the question is: do lights in the sky imply the existence of aliens, i would say no. Since aliens (as the term commonly is used) are ideas created by ingenious fantasy writers such as Asimov and Wells. Without their inspiration, it is not likely that this concept would exist in the pubic psyche.
What would these objects be called otherwise? Meteors? Who knows.
Meteors don't intelligently evade interception.
As I have explained, no conventional explanation can account for this sighting. Which means two possible explanations can only hold:
A) They are intellects from another world
B) They are intellects from this world
In conjunction with B), they are highly doubftul aircraft from the US government. These objects where ordered to be shot down and seems very unlikely that the US gov. would shoot down their own aircraft. Taking into consideration the year in which this event happened, it seems almost doubtful B) could hold up for any country taking into account how technologically advanced these objects were.
Read-Only
12-03-11, 08:42 AM
Don't play games with me. Fair enough, you might not have used the word ''stupid'' but since you are defending people like phlog or maybe even Ophiliote who are quite clearly attacking the intelligence of UFO believers, who can't help but wonder if you fall into the same catagory?
Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this?
Sure, I deny that statement. When you use a word like ONLY you are indicating that you aren't bright enough to leave room for exceptions. In fact, there have been several well-known scientists who fall/fell in that category that you are now claiming does not exist. If you had chosen a word like "generally" then I would have agreed with you.
Back to the main topic, I've seen *several* UFOs myself - but it a BIG leap from an object being simply unidentified to aliens.
Sure, I deny that statement. When you use a word like ONLY you are indicating that you aren't bright enough to leave room for exceptions. In fact, there have been several well-known scientists who fall/fell in that category that you are now claiming does not exist. If you had chosen a word like "generally" then I would have agreed with you.
Back to the main topic, I've seen *several* UFOs myself - but it a BIG leap from an object being simply unidentified to aliens.
When I have used the word ''Only''.... please give me an example.
There may be some exceptional cases I have used the word ''Only'' in conjecture when all other explanations fail to suffice. This is the principle of Occams Razor, nonetheless. I don't use that word willy nilly, and any time I have used that word will be far inbetween.
So I would like an example.
Also, I don't jump from ''UFO'' to aliens. You should know this if you have read any of my threads. Some exceptional cases will in fact warrant that explanation when conventional explanations are drained from the cloth.
Read-Only
12-03-11, 03:12 PM
When I have used the word ''Only''.... please give me an example.
There may be some exceptional cases I have used the word ''Only'' in conjecture when all other explanations fail to suffice. This is the principle of Occams Razor, nonetheless. I don't use that word willy nilly, and any time I have used that word will be far inbetween.
So I would like an example.
WOW!! You really ARE sad, aren't you?? :rolleyes: How about this from just a couple of posts earlier?:
"Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this? "
Sheesh!!!!!:bugeye:
@Mister --
Who said that no one who believes in ETs can be trusted? One of my friends believes in aliens and I'd trust him with my life, but then he's one of those believers who will accept and admit when he was wrong about something in response to new evidence and arguments. Then there's people like you who are nuts, people who hold on to debunked stories like Roswell and the Phoenix Lights in order to keep their fragile worldview from shattering. You're the ones who give UFO enthusiasts a bad name.
WOW!! You really ARE sad, aren't you?? :rolleyes: How about this from just a couple of posts earlier?:
"Indeed, only people who have a poor education are most likely to be gullible and ignorant of facts. Do you deny this? "
Sheesh!!!!!
It was a question towards you, whether you believed it. Why would I believe it? :bugeye:
You're not good with this, questioning and answering thing are you? Even if the question is towards you to see if you will admit your true intent towards posters like me :rolleyes:
@Mister --
Who said that no one who believes in ETs can be trusted? One of my friends believes in aliens and I'd trust him with my life, but then he's one of those believers who will accept and admit when he was wrong about something in response to new evidence and arguments. Then there's people like you who are nuts, people who hold on to debunked stories like Roswell and the Phoenix Lights in order to keep their fragile worldview from shattering. You're the ones who give UFO enthusiasts a bad name.
I understand that some people have some selective memories here concerning posts...
Ophiliote offended me by stating in a post that I must be uneducated because I believe in such things. Since read only and yourself are quick to stand beside him, who cannot help but think you must think along the same lines?
If no one else believes this, then why didn't anyone say anything?
Read-Only
12-04-11, 03:15 PM
I understand that some people have some selective memories here concerning posts...
Ophiliote offended me by stating in a post that I must be uneducated because I believe in such things. Since read only and yourself are quick to stand beside him, who cannot help but think you must think along the same lines?
If no one else believes this, then why didn't anyone say anything?
Pay attention AGAIN, Bub!!! You were the one who claimed to seldom if ever use the word "only" and I pointed you DIRECTLY to where you had just said it only minutes earlier! It's clearly YOU that has a terrible problem with "selective memories" here - even ULTRA-short-term ones. :bugeye:
And as far as my attitude towards you, I will continue to point out how irrational your thinking is along the UFO lines. You ARE the kind (as someone pointed out recently) who give the UFOlogists a bad name. They would be more credible without a sucker like you among their ranks.:rolleyes:
Pay attention AGAIN, Bub!!! You were the one who claimed to seldom if ever use the word "only" and I pointed you DIRECTLY to where you had just said it only minutes earlier! It's clearly YOU that has a terrible problem with "selective memories" here - even ULTRA-short-term ones. :bugeye:
And as far as my attitude towards you, I will continue to point out how irrational your thinking is along the UFO lines. You ARE the kind (as someone pointed out recently) who give the UFOlogists a bad name. They would be more credible without a sucker like you among their ranks.:rolleyes:
Yeah, I said I rarely used because I thought you were implying a UFO case. Fine I used it in that sense. Big deal.
I thought you were saying I used it in conjecture of saying ''the only solution must be Aliens.''
Which I've never done. Hence why there has been confusement up till now. Get over it.
And whatever has rocked your boat, I hope you drown in the waters.
I think you hate the fact I am well-informed in the UFO phenomenon. You won't find someone like me in a hurry which can debate the intricate subjects. I know the UFO history like the back of my hand. My rational opinion on the subject is what has led me to know there is more than what the story is being told by the skeptics.
Read-Only
12-04-11, 05:26 PM
Yeah, I said I rarely used because I thought you were implying a UFO case. Fine I used it in that sense. Big deal.
I thought you were saying I used it in conjecture of saying ''the only solution must be Aliens.''
Which I've never done. Hence why there has been confusement up till now. Get over it.
I don't bother "implying" anything, Bub, I tell it straight up just like is. Unlike you nutters who RELY on implications.
Wanna know something? I've got no problem to get over. You are the one with a problem because I fully intend to highlight ANY AND ALL mistakes the you make here simply because I think you are UFO nutty!
And by the way, why did you make up that stupid word "confusement"? Is the ordinary word "confusion" to difficult for you to spell????
I don't bother "implying" anything, Bub, I tell it straight up just like is. Unlike you nutters who RELY on implications.
And you want everyone to believe your previous statement that you have no informed opinions on UFO believers???
GIVE ME A BREAK lol :rolleyes:
You and others don't go around calling believers cranks and nuts for no good reason. You may as well attack their education on baseless grounds.
In the meanwhile, I haven't seen any credible scientific explanation from yourself or no-one for that matter on the Washington 1952 incident.
I'll assume this one has you all stumped. Just what I like to see ;)
@Mister --
I understand that some people have some selective memories here concerning posts...
No what some people have is a life, a job. I'm a freelance writer, if I don't produce quality work in a timely manner then the money goes elsewhere, I'm sorry if that inconveniences you but I don't have time to just sit here all day keeping track of the threads, that's what the moderators are for(and they have lives and jobs too).
Ophiliote offended me by stating in a post that I must be uneducated because I believe in such things.
I don't remember seeing the post, but given as it was undoubtedly in response to one of your more "out there" statements(and there are a plethora to choose from), I fail to see how it was my responsibility to correct Ophiliote. Perhaps you should have corrected the post yourself by telling us your qualifications.
And honestly, offending someone here is not a violation of the rules or anything. Was what he posted true? I haven't the foggiest, but I fail to see why I should care.
Since read only and yourself are quick to stand beside him, who cannot help but think you must think along the same lines?
I can see how you would think that, but given my ignorance of the post I have to wonder why you would. One explanation is that it fits with your worldview of a global conspiracy to hide "the truth" and it fits with the psychology needed to maintain such a worldview, but now I'm just speculating and since that's your forte I'll leave that to you.
If no one else believes this, then why didn't anyone say anything?
Again, some of us have lives outside of this forum.
I have a life outside this forum too. I haven't been here in over a day previously to today. But when I come back, if I want to engage in a discussion, then I go out my way to read the posts.
Your point is an excuse for not wanting to know the details. Not an explanation.
Read-Only
12-04-11, 11:48 PM
And you want everyone to believe your previous statement that you have no informed opinions on UFO believers???
GIVE ME A BREAK lol :rolleyes:
You and others don't go around calling believers cranks and nuts for no good reason. You may as well attack their education on baseless grounds.
In the meanwhile, I haven't seen any credible scientific explanation from yourself or no-one for that matter on the Washington 1952 incident.
I'll assume this one has you all stumped. Just what I like to see ;)
I'm not even the least bit interested in that Washington "incident" or any others.
My purpose here is very simple and straightforward - to emphasize your missteps, pointing out when you trip over your own two clumsy feet, etc. And anyone who resorts to making up silly words like "confusement" has no place among literate and intelligent people. And there is nothing you can do to prevent me from doing so. My ultimate goal is to never relent until you finally give up is disgust/distaste and leave this site forever. You can take your nonsense and try to peddle it elswhere.
I'm not even the least bit interested in that Washington "incident" or any others.
My purpose here is very simple and straightforward - to emphasize your missteps
I'm afraid you will fail in presenting any missteps of mine if you aren't willing to debate the incidents at hand. Because if you have no willingness to debate the OP, then I will report you for trolling.
Simples. Debate the thread, or cease communicating in it.
Oh, and if anyone else here thinks I can be bullied into leaving this site, you can think again. My ability to see things through right to the end are renown.
ReadOnly, grow up. I mean seriously, how old are you? I will never leave this site forever, especially for the likes of you. If anything, you drive me to want to stay. the complete opposite of your goal lol
In case it cause confusion for anyone else, ''confusement'' where I come is an Urban word.
phlogistician
12-05-11, 07:40 AM
Here is original video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D326UXwubKA&feature=related
Did you read the comments about the video? That colour TV was not broadcast in the USA in 1952? Did you check up those facts independently?
Also, that colour film was very expensive at that time, and therefore, it is unlikely a camera with colour film was just filming the sky at that time.
Also no source or credit is given for the clip, so no further investigation may take place.
These little things go over your head, huh?
Read-Only
12-05-11, 08:16 AM
Oh, and if anyone else here thinks I can be bullied into leaving this site, you can think again. My ability to see things through right to the end are renown.
ReadOnly, grow up. I mean seriously, how old are you? I will never leave this site forever, especially for the likes of you. If anything, you drive me to want to stay. the complete opposite of your goal lol
I'm betting my KIDS are older than you (and more intelligent as well as better educated, too).
Oh, you'll give it someday - I've NO doubt about that. And as far as debating your topic? I've seen all of this garbage before. In fact, ones like the Washington "incident", I was aware of it when it happened, which, I figure was LONG before you were even born. It was trash then and it's still trash today.
And by the way, your color film is TOTALLY bogus!! You obviously aren't aware of it's history. :bugeye: Yes, a sad, sad person you are!
Read-Only
12-05-11, 08:20 AM
In case it cause confusion for anyone else, ''confusement'' where I come is an Urban word.
Who cares? We don't live in your silly neighborhood! :mad: And the proper English form of what you TRIED to say above would include an "s" at the end of your rather illiterate "cause." :bugeye:
I'm betting my KIDS are older than you (and more intelligent as well as better educated, too).
Oh how brilliant for your kids.
Do your kids realize they have a overbearing, pompous and undignified Father?
If they do and are as intelligent as you claim, I doubt they be much pleased.
Who says the video is fake any way? I've heard the video above has most likely been buffed up because it was such an old film.
I'm opening a formal debate about something you said. If you want to back up your claims, I'd advise you take it there.
phlogistician
12-05-11, 10:42 AM
Who says the video is fake any way? I've heard the video above has most likely been buffed up because it was such an old film.
Where did you hear that? More claims, no more evidence.
phlogistician
12-05-11, 10:43 AM
I'm opening a formal debate about something you said. If you want to back up your claims, I'd advise you take it there.
Well, you are going to be lonely over there in formal debates, 'cos your BS vid was already debunked over at YouTube. You haven't added any proof, so it remains debunked.
adoucette
12-05-11, 12:24 PM
Who says the video is fake any way? I've heard the video above has most likely been buffed up because it was such an old film.
Most everybody who has seen it
this is a clip from the X-files (note the location and date line that appears) and a recreation visually of events that were documented but not filmed. No one actually SAW anything in the skies over DC. Radar picked up blips that the USAF went to invesitgate. The blips vanished once the planes got there and then returned as soon as the planes left. But had anyone taken video footage like this back then you'd surely know about it.
Who cares about the video anyway? I posted about the incident before I even went on youtube to search for a video evidence.
With any video evidence, fake or not aside, the history is there in black and white. Saying the sightings are rubbish based on a fake video is unscientific and blind to the hard facts.
The incident is not rubbish. The incident is in the archives of Military and published in scholarly books all over the world. There are people who remember the incident to this day.
And your qoute is wrong. People did see things in the sky. You've obviously not read the Airforce reports that the air pilots had intercepted the lights, observed them and the lights surrounded some of the pilots. The lights would evade them however at all costs.
So where did you get that clipping from, you should really cite when you do such a thing.
I am away for now, be back later.
Shouldn't this be in the UFO nut enthusiast section?
adoucette
12-05-11, 02:15 PM
Who cares about the video anyway?
Apparently you did, since YOU posted the link to it and YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL.
Here is original video
Which gives us an idea of how critical your reasoning skills are and how ACCEPTING you are of things which agree with your pre-conceived notions.
Apparently you did, since YOU posted the link to it and YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL.
He does that. He'll link to something and then disavow it.
Apparently you did, since YOU posted the link to it and YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL.
Which gives us an idea of how critical your reasoning skills are and how ACCEPTING you are of things which agree with your pre-conceived notions.
If the video is fake, so be it.
The paragraph that was given with that conjecture is simply wrong as well. Saying there was no sighting of them is false. Period.
He does that. He'll link to something and then disavow it.
If there is any doubt on it, why wouldn't I? I am here to appease the scientific way as good as I can. I won't however sit back and let people tell me things like
''No one actually SAW anything in the skies over DC. Radar picked up blips that the USAF went to invesitgate.
The blips vanished once the planes got there and then returned as soon as the planes left.
But had anyone taken video footage like this back then you'd surely know about it. ''
The first line is just false. The second line is only partially true. As I said, one pilot is a witness to being surrounded by the lights --- In fact, the light's turned round and surrounded his plane.
That is a big difference to saying that no one saw anything in the skies of washington.
:bugeye:
So adoucette, will you not disavow your claim in light of the evidence. Also, you never posted a link to where you extracted that little gem of a lie. I have asked you once to provide evidence, you still haven't done. I will ask again.
@Mister --
What makes you think that this pilot wasn't hallucinating?
What makes me think this? How about the tangible radio-interference of several objects?
I'd also be worried with the state of arguements here. From hundreds of UFO-sightings during the war, to this account, it all boils down to ''pilots hallucinating''. If this is true, I am worried indeed, that we are letting people like this in our airspace. Not even a large percentage of educated pilots hallucinate, even in the best of conditions. Not to mention again, there was radar confirmation.
@Mister --
I'm going to do something now that you're going to hate, but it is still a valid explanation. It was coincidence.
Not even a large percentage of educated pilots hallucinate, even in the best of conditions. Not to mention again, there was radar confirmation.
Are they human? If yes then they hallucinate, end of story.
Are they human? If yes then they hallucinate, end of story.
Where is your logic in such a statement?
If the pilots are high in the air, conducting an aero-spatial dynamic, what makes you think they went in the mental zone of being alien?
My contentions are blind on the event, in effect, I cannot tell you what they were. I can only report that the event was observed in total contradiction to statement provided before that they hadn't and that the technological capabilities even exceeded those that could be managed by the US airforce.
You go figure.
@Mister --
You said this, "Not even a large percentage of educated pilots hallucinate, even in the best of conditions. Not to mention again, there was radar confirmation." But the pilots are human and therefore not only hallucinate but have selectively edited memories as well. We all do, these are two things that the human brain does naturally, with the latter being done literally continuously. You're ignoring two well established facts of human biology in an attempt to support your pet beliefs.
@Mister --
You said this, "Not even a large percentage of educated pilots hallucinate, even in the best of conditions. Not to mention again, there was radar confirmation." But the pilots are human and therefore not only hallucinate but have selectively edited memories as well. We all do, these are two things that the human brain does naturally, with the latter being done literally continuously. You're ignoring two well established facts of human biology in an attempt to support your pet beliefs.
Yes, what I said is true. If the larger part of pilots hallucinated, do you think they would be continued to be hired?
These guys, according to Military Law, get medicals all the time. Most of them are given a full bill of health. Explaining all these sightings off as hallucination, especially under normal conditions (that meaning they are not at excpetionally high altitudes where the air is terribly thin) how can one dismiss so many accounts to hallucinations?
The best part of the nations do not hallucinate.
Forgive me upfront, not to offend anyone who is, but such hallucinations are really reserved normally for schizophrenics and other chemically-disturbed brain activities.
Also, assuming then from what you qouted, you seem to be saying even the radar communication ''guys'' also hallucinate.
On what grounds do any hallucinate, seriously?
i've heard medical reasons, as far as the mind can stretch.
@Mister --
Not even a large percentage of educated pilots hallucinate, even in the best of conditions. Not to mention again, there was radar confirmation.
Yes, because for the most part their hallucinations don't coincide with their time in the air. The military has to hire humans so they therefore have to hire people who hallucinate since all humans hallucinate to some degree.
These guys, according to Military Law, get medicals all the time. Most of them are given a full bill of health.
You don't know much about human physiology do you? Perfectly healthy individuals hallucinate too, it's not necessarily a sign of illness, though a sudden rash of vivid hallucinations could indicate some sort of problem. It's a side effect of the way our brains are wired and the way they interpret sensory information.
Our brains never get the full picture from our senses. Even our eyes technically "see" things as a sort of stop-motion picture, with large packets of data missing(and then there's the "blind spot" that we all have, caused by the optic nerve penetrating the retina). Why, then, do we not perceive the world this way? Because our brains do their best to fill in the gaps with guesses based on other information sources and previously known information. This leads to all sorts of really cool optical illusions which are a sort of hallucination(sensory input that doesn't correspond with reality) and we are all subject to them at roughly the same rate. It's a fact of biology, you can't argue this away with appeals to authority or consequences.
And you completely skipped over the memory editing function of the brain too, but I can give you more on that at a later time.
Explaining all these sightings off as hallucination
Who said that all of them are hallucinations? I certainly didn't, I said that this one was most likely caused by hallucinations and radar error. Coincidence might be distasteful to you, but it's a hell of a lot better explanation than yours, which basically comes down to "I can't explain it, therefore I can explain it".
but such hallucinations are really reserved normally for schizophrenics and other chemically-disturbed brain activities.
LOL! You really are displaying your ignorance here. We're not dealing with physics, which is the only field you've claimed any significant knowledge of, we're dealing with biology. You've strayed from your realm of "expertise" into a realm where you're little different from a mewling babe.
Everyone hallucinates just as surely as everyone lies, the only variables are how often and how vivid it is. We know that the human brain is more than capable of creating entire illusory worlds with varied and different populations, even going so far as to create different personalities for different people in the hallucinatory world. In fact, if your brain ever really knuckled down to "fuck with your head"(sorry, I had to) you would be unable to discern the difference between your hallucination and reality. Given these capabilities(without which we wouldn't be able to function as we couldn't interpret our senses in a working manner), and given the fact that we all have minor hallucinations of no real importance(did you ever think that you saw something of a specific color only to later discover that it wasn't really that color? There's a good chance that you hallucinated there) almost on a daily basis, and given the fact that our memories are edited after the fact by our brains so that they fit our worldview better, is it any wonder that pilots hallucinate as well? After all, they are human.
Also, assuming then from what you qouted, you seem to be saying even the radar communication ''guys'' also hallucinate.
Yes, I did say that everyone hallucinates, but I didn't say that everyone hallucinated everything in that "event". The radar guys might have seen something, but radar failure happens, hence why I said it was probably a coincidence. Do you have any evidence that the radar device in question was in working order at the time of the sighting?
rubbish. There are corresponding radar communications with eye-witness accounts. both serve each other. Don't be blind!
@Mister --
There are corresponding radar communications with eye-witness accounts.
And both can be individually explained. A fairly common event(a human hallucinating) coinciding with a fairly uncommon event(radar failure) still fits better than an extraterrestrial craft. My explanation is parsimonious, yours is not. Mine fits the facts better, yours leaves only unexplained holes(such as how they found us or why they even bothered to come here in the first place).
Much as you might hate it, coincidence is a powerful explanation for this event.
Don't be blind!
You're the one being blind. You're ignoring physical facts to support your pet theory in the hopes that people here will buy into that bullshit.
Individually explained?
A wee analogy here...
You see an entangled particle in the lab, with another a distance apart. Would you automatically believe they are individual phenomenon?
Please lol
Evidence is very powerful. Coincidence cannot be fathomed if it is beyond reason. Just like the case we have been speaking about, I know where your logic is. You don't seem to realize the important of finding alluminium at both the crash site, or the alleged place at where it dwelled for many years.
you are totally unscientific.
@Mister --
Individually explained?
A wee analogy here...
You see an entangled particle in the lab, with another a distance apart. Would you automatically believe they are individual phenomenon?
For your analogy to be valid the entanglement would have to be an unparsimonious explanation like your explanation for these events is. Again, my explanation is more parsimonious than yours.
As for your other post, I think that you're having difficulty keeping your threads separate.
You obviously missed the goal, when it was hit.
I've had enough of you. I won't discuss this with you anymore, including the fact I acted as a skeptic to a bit of the information which fell through. You are set inherently to dissinform anyone against those who believe, the complete opposite to my goal.
You aren't a scientific skeptic, you are simply a troll. From, saying there is no evidence, which there clearly is, to saying what I say is folly without good justification.
A UFO nut is a UFO nut, and there's no masking it.
lol... you lot make me laugh. I am the one who has provided evidence yet you lot think you can give frivolous answers to them, yet you think you can report me....
....for what?
Reported.
:shrug:
It doesn't change the facts. A UFO nut is a UFO nut.
For those on the debunking side, where has it been debunked?
@Alex --
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I reported Mister for continuously posting false and misleading information in violation of the Sciforums posting guidelines.
@Geoff --
It doesn't have to be debunked, it already has an explanation, hence why Mister put it in the conspiracy sub-forum.
OK, what's the explanation?
His original link here provides an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident#Criticisms_of_th e_Air_Force_explanation) He merely disagrees with it because it doesn't fit his blinkered worldview.
For those on the debunking side, where has it been debunked?
Actually a very good question. A question itself I have raised a few times in a different guise.
Indeed, you cannot refute a thing because there is no proof against (please everyone, stop mistaking a proof from an evidence. I see too many today raising I have no evidence, when I and others, clearly do!)
:bugeye:
@Alex --
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I reported Mister for continuously posting false and misleading information in violation of the Sciforums posting guidelines.
Hahahahah...
SORRY... i missed a bit...
...ahahahahaha....
His original link here provides an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident#Criticisms_of_th e_Air_Force_explanation) He merely disagrees with it because it doesn't fit his blinkered worldview.
So you are ignoring every bit of evidence to the contrary... and you want me banned for it...
...good luck with that one mate.
@Mister --
Again, you haven't posted any evidence. But go ahead and report me, let's see what happens.
@Mister --
Again, you haven't posted any evidence. But go ahead and report me, let's see what happens.
You seem to still be grapling with the difference between evidence and proof...
...I am sorry this is the case. But I am afraid it won't get me banned; atleast, it should not.
@Mister --
What evidence have you provided us? Some words on a page and two links, one to a debunked video(so not evidence), and one to a wikipedia article which gives an alternative explanation to the one you like(so not evidence in your favor). Again I have to ask, where have you provided any evidence?
@Mister --
What evidence have you provided us? Some words on a page and two links, one to a debunked video(so not evidence), and one to a wikipedia article which gives an alternative explanation to the one you like(so not evidence in your favor). Again I have to ask, where have you provided any evidence?
You are highly trolling. Either you are incompetent to the nature of evidence, or you don't know it's difference to proof, in which case, god bless, you must be somewhat retarded.
extacted from the OP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Wa...._UFO_incident
taken are excerpts from wiki
Barnes had two controllers check Nugent's radar; they found that it was working normally. Barnes then called National Airport's other radar center; the controller there, Howard Cocklin, told Barnes that he also had the objects on his radarscope. Furthermore, Cocklin said that by looking out of the control tower window he could see one of the objects:
"a bright orange light. I can't tell what's behind it" (Clark, 653).
Airman William Brady, who was in the tower, then saw an "object which appeared to be like an orange ball of fire, trailing a tail . . . [it was] unlike anything I had ever seen before."
As Brady tried to alert the other personnel in the tower, the strange object "took off at an unbelievable speed." Meanwhile, another person in the National Airport control tower reported seeing "an orange disk about 3,000 feet altitude". On one of the airport's runways, S.C. Pierman, a Capital Airlines pilot, was waiting in the cockpit of his DC-4 for permission to take off. After spotting what he believed to be a meteor, he was told that the control tower's radar had picked up unknown objects closing in on his position. Pierman observed six objects — "white, tailless, fast-moving lights" — over a 14-minute period (Clark, 655). Pierman was in radio contact with Barnes during his sighting, and Barnes later related that "each sighting coincided with a pip we could see near his plane. When he reported that the light streaked off at a high speed, it disappeared on our scope."
The object vanished in all three radar centers at the same time (Ruppelt, p. 160). At 3 a.m., shortly before two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington, all of the objects vanished from the radar at National Airport. However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned, which convinced Barnes that "the UFOs were monitoring radio traffic and behaving accordingly" (Clark, 656). The objects were last detected by radar at 5:30 a.m. Around sunrise, E.W. Chambers, a civilian radio engineer in Washington's suburbs, observed "five huge disks circling in a loose formation. They tilted upward and left on a steep ascent."
The officials working at the time tried to account the radar blips as being due to ''bad weather''.... yeah right. How long did it take them to make that story up? Because no objects were actually seen, right?
two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar pips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts (Peebles, 76). However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter.
Suggests intelligence behind the objects.
So how long will skeptics honestly keep the cherade up, that those who believe, believe for no good reason and are nothing but a bunch of unintelligent crackpots, who are niave and without good judgement?
The 1952 case is the best reported UFO case. It cannot be denied in any shape or form. The nature of the event is spectacular as well.
Give it up. Do you think myself and you are the ony one's reading this?
Irrelevant, an attempt at an appeal to consequences. Not going to work.
Anything I have said has complied to science
Except for the whole "alien" bit maybe....wait no, nothing you've said has complied with scientific standards.
what you have said complies mostly to guess-work...
And "lights in the sky, it must be aliens!" isn't guesswork? LOL! You're too funny sometimes.
in fact, that very fact you have said most pilots experience hallucingetic properties is beyond science
Why is it bad science? All humans are prone to hallucinations due to various facts of our biology(which I kindly laid out for you), all of our pilots(ever) have been human, ergo it follows logically that all pilots hallucinate. Not necessarily while in the air, and not necessarily noticeably, but they still do. Therefore this is not bad science but a logical progression from known biological facts. QED.
especially when you take into consideration that there have been over 5000 cases of pilot testimonies.
Irrelevant as I never said that they were all hallucinations.
Please don't bother trying again. It's getting ridiculously easy to destroy your posts. Come back again once you've calmed down and are able to pose something of a challenge for me.
@Mister --
You are highly trolling. Either you are incompetent to the nature of evidence, or you don't know it's difference to proof, in which case, god bless, you must be somewhat retarded.
Reported for insulting another poster.
@Mister --
Reported for insulting another poster.
How many times do I have to explain this though... Am I being reported for stating the obvious?
Please, I wrote this out nicely for those who can't understand the difference. My brother is retarded --- I'd hardly take it to offense, unless you are???
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2868727#post2868727
@Mister --
How many times do I have to explain this though... Am I being reported for stating the obvious?
No, you were reported for directly insulting another poster, namely me, by saying that if I don't "get it" that I must be retarded. The point isn't whether or not I took offense, it's that I'm sick and tired of your bullshit so I'm not going to stand for it anymore.
Whenever anyone, for any reason, questions the "evidence" you present, or provides an alternative explanation for it you lash out, eventually terminating in insults like the last one. And if I remember correctly that was what your last ban was for as well, so it's obvious that someone other than myself noticed this trend of yours.
Not divulging in you anymore. Case closed, as I said. You've admitted to knowing a big difference in the larger part of our arguements which kept refuting. I don't want to waste any more time on you!
@Mister --
Yup. The difference is that I'm not willing to make large and unparsimonious assumptions(and I've showed conclusively that they are indeed assumptions) based on wish thinking. Oh, and I've actually worked in a lab before, that's another difference.
phlogistician
12-06-11, 03:30 AM
You are highly trolling.
Oh, that's rich. So far you've posted a video showing UFOs over Washington, and then said you don't care about the video, and started a thread about 'chemtrails' and then said you don't care about those either. THAT is trolling kid.
phlogistician
12-06-11, 03:36 AM
Who cares about the video anyway?
I do. The fact you linked to it shows you lack critical thinking and discernment.
The discussion of the video debunked it. But you didn't bother reading that, or investigating it, you just offered it up as 'proof'.
I suspect you do this a lot, and do not look critically at stories that appeal to you.
Coz' I went on youtube and extracted a video which claimed to be the actual footage. Just thought it would have been a nice addition.
Fact is, if it is not real, it still does not address why people here are qouting erreneous qoutes concerning the contention that no one saw anything.
I will argue this is false all the way. Video is irrelevant now.
phlogistician
12-06-11, 10:01 AM
Video is irrelevant now.
It's relevant. It proves you don't check your facts.
His original link here provides an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident#Criticisms_of_th e_Air_Force_explanation) He merely disagrees with it because it doesn't fit his blinkered worldview.
Well, I read the source on that wiki, and I don't think the Air Force's explanation is so iron-cast. Can one perhaps debate each point in turn? For starters: is that video of the lights moving past the White House real or no?
It's relevant. It proves you don't check your facts.
I am not privvy on checking the authenticity of some believable youtube video's. Perhaps you could give me a lession?
Well, I read the source on that wiki, and I don't think the Air Force's explanation is so iron-cast. Can one perhaps debate each point in turn? For starters: is that video of the lights moving past the White House real or no?
Yeah, the airforce explanation is pretty much bogus. As for the video, probably not. I am awaiting to see where the information against this came from. Some gave a small clipping, which had errors all the way through it.
Wouldn't bother me much if it did turn out to be a fake video. It doesn't impact the wiki article in any way.
phlogistician
12-06-11, 11:04 AM
I am not privvy on checking the authenticity of some believable youtube video's. Perhaps you could give me a lession?
I'm not your teacher.
Then stop telling me how to conduct a scientific method.
He's not telling you how to do it, he's telling you to start adhering to the scientific method.
Oh, and here's a bit of lite reading for you regarding life in the universe. (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336775/title/Distant_world_looks_too_ripe_for_life)
phlogistician
12-07-11, 03:41 AM
Then stop telling me how to conduct a scientific method.
I'm fully allowed to tell you when you are doing it wrong. It's just you get so much wrong, I haven't got the time to take you back to basics and educate you from scratch.
James R
12-07-11, 03:53 AM
As I have explained, no conventional explanation can account for this sighting. Which means two possible explanations can only hold:
A) They are intellects from another world
B) They are intellects from this world
Isn't (B) a conventional explanation? (e.g. the B-52 bomber explanation?)
More importantly, how have you established that "no conventional explanation can account for this sighting"? I could list about 10 possible conventional explanations off the top of my head. Have you really considered all the possibilities?
By the way, you should always take accounts of how fast UFOs move, how far away they are etc. with a grain of salt. Observers tend to be notoriously inaccurate about such things.
Isn't (B) a conventional explanation? (e.g. the B-52 bomber explanation?)
More importantly, how have you established that "no conventional explanation can account for this sighting"? I could list about 10 possible conventional explanations off the top of my head. Have you really considered all the possibilities?
By the way, you should always take accounts of how fast UFOs move, how far away they are etc. with a grain of salt. Observers tend to be notoriously inaccurate about such things.
Please list them.
We've been through flares, chinese lanterns (which I shot down with accuracy provided by help from Phlog and his little video). If you want me to cover this evidence again, I will.
Planes? Aye right, plenty reasons why that doesn't fit the bill either. Helicopters are equally the same. Rockets maybe in your 10 lists of things? Well, I don't know any rockets which fits the description of the Pheonix Lights.
Birds maybe James?
Common, list your 10 conventional explanations which can account for the pheonix lights. I'll assume you have not really studied the evidence to it's strongest and went through why any of the conventional explanations will not suffice, but don't worry, I'll be easy with you.
''By the way, you should always take accounts of how fast UFOs move, how far away they are etc. with a grain of salt. Observers tend to be notoriously inaccurate about such things.''
I do, which is what makes the pheonix lights so increadibly justified, because there are so many witnesses who are there making the same statements over and over again, without little contradiction.
A few contradict others, but these are based on whether they could see a structure passing overhead.
adoucette
12-07-11, 02:34 PM
I'll assume you have not really studied the evidence.
What evidence are you referring to?
What evidence are you referring to?
1)Video evidence
2) Witness statements
3) history
4) documentary backing
5) even professional evaluation of the flare arguement
With all these side-by-side, each can argue against a conventional explanation. Let us put it this way, if there is an explanation, it is non-convention, which may mean an extremely elaborate explanation. That does not mean aliens by default. Though it seems very credible when the evidience is scrutanized.
adoucette
12-07-11, 03:54 PM
1)Video evidence
2) Witness statements
3) history
4) documentary backing
5) even professional evaluation of the flare arguement
With all these side-by-side, each can argue against a conventional explanation. Let us put it this way, if there is an explanation, it is non-convention, which may mean an extremely elaborate explanation. That does not mean aliens by default. Though it seems very credible when the evidience is scrutanized.
There is no Video Evidence.
The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.
History isn't evidence
Documentary backing isn't evidence.
An evaluation of an argument is not evidence.
You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.
There is no Video Evidence.
The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.
History isn't evidence
Documentary backing isn't evidence.
An evaluation of an argument is not evidence.
You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.
WTF are you talking about?
Of course there is video evidence... what do you call this: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=original+footage+the+pheonix+ lights&oq=original+footage+the+pheonix+lights&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1048049l1055960l0l1056146l43l40l3l30l0l0l46 7l1538l0.4.2.0.1l7l0
They were the searches off youtube. more directly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM
How can you say there is no video evidence? You are clearly trolling?
Guys do you do this to me intentionally? I mean seriously.
''Documentary backing isn't evidence. ''
Yes it can be, if there are genuine investigators in the name of science giving their views. It is very much evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But since you are under the dilusion that no video evidence actually exists, that's ok, I'll take it your highly mistaken about everything!!!
''You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.''
How? Dare I ask, explain! If you mean physical evidence, no I have none. Evidence comes in many arrays! Indeed, comes in many forms!
Please list them.
We've been through flares, chinese lanterns (which I shot down with accuracy provided by help from Phlog and his little video). If you want me to cover this evidence again, I will.
are washington and tinley one and the same? ;)
There are many similarities, but on the same hand, some reasonable cause to think they are different.
Interestingly, there was an object in complete symmetry which happened in Australia just the next day! eek
I understand your comment, as I have said, but the major differences is that eye-witness testimony stated (pilots nonetheless) which have stated that the lights surrounded them, and moved differential patterns, so assume this to be true, then we have on this case, lights that are not part of a structure.
The tinley lights have massive evidence to suggest they were part of a massive structure.
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:08 PM
WTF are you talking about?
Of course there is video evidence... what do you call this: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=original+footage+the+pheonix+ lights&oq=original+footage+the+pheonix+lights&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1048049l1055960l0l1056146l43l40l3l30l0l0l46 7l1538l0.4.2.0.1l7l0
Ah how did we get from Washington National to Pheonix?
''Documentary backing isn't evidence. ''
Yes it can be, if there are genuine investigators in the name of science giving their views. It is very much evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, that's an OPINION and can hardly be used as actual EVIDENCE of Alien visitors.
If you mean physical evidence, no I have none.
No kidding.
There is no Video Evidence.
The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.
the prima facie evidence for the sun is sunlight
observation is the starting point for the scientific method
sunlight is evidence of sunlight?
i suppose if it were up to you we would be still grunting in caves
There are many similarities, but on the same hand, some reasonable cause to think they are different.
you are having trouble tracking your threads, kiddo
less is better
stop spamming
Ah how did we get from Washington National to Pheonix?
No, that's an OPINION and can hardly be used as actual EVIDENCE of Alien visitors.
No kidding.
Sorry, I have confused my threads. The rest stands though.
By the way, the part which said the video evidence was not true, was also excerpted from an alleged page (which has not been directly linked yet) to numerous errors. Such as stating there were no witness accounts of the lights.
:rolleyes:
I have asked atleast three time for this page to be revealed, but no has entertained me! So saying there is no video evidence, is akin to me saying there was no witness testimony to the lights. So far, I can demonstrate the latter is false by linking testimony evidence. No one has set me straight to where these claims that the video was taken from Xfiles lol
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:20 PM
the prima facie evidence for the sun is sunlight
observation is the starting point for the scientific method
Well I'd put observing the object in the sky as the primary evidence, but let's not quibble.
sunlight is evidence of sunlight?
No, the light from the sun is evidence that the sun radiates light energy.
Light can both be seen from what it reflects off of or what it radiates from.
Because light can pass through the atmosphere without being visible, one can't necessarily tell, at a distance if one is seeing the generation or the reflection of a light.
So the reality is that no evidence has been given as to what created the lights that were seen, and since we know that light can come from a LONG way off, one can't use the presence of fast moving LIGHTS to presume the speed of an object.
For instance, one could project a spotlight on a distant object, and just by a relatively slow movement of the projector create the appearance of a very fast moving object.
Which is why limited evidence can also be misleading.
you are having trouble tracking your threads, kiddo
less is better
stop spamming
I know, I have apologized for this. I thought for a moment we had been discussing the pheonix case.
Again, sorry ;)
Well I'd put observing the object in the sky as the primary evidence, but let's not quibble.
No, the light from the sun is evidence that the sun radiates light energy.
Light can both be seen from what it reflects off of or what it radiates from.
Because light can pass through the atmosphere without being visible, one can't necessarily tell, at a distance if one is seeing the generation or the reflection of a light.
So the reality is that no evidence has been given as to what created the lights that were seen, and since we know that light can come from a LONG way off, one can't use the presence of fast moving LIGHTS to presume the speed of an object.
For instance, one could project a spotlight on a distant object, and just by a relatively slow movement of the projector create the appearance of a very fast moving object.
Which is why limited evidence can also be misleading.
There were several lights observed. The sky was as dark as ever, and the lights traversed at a low altitude.
Only the sun really effects cosmological objects. Not even a meteor will have noticable effects from the sun --- The reason why they are seen is because of Oxydization chemical reactions to the atmosphere.
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:23 PM
No one has set me straight to where these claims that the video was taken from Xfiles lol
I don't know where it came from but apparently neither do you.
You can tell it's more modern then 1952 by the superimposed text on the bottom and the fact that it is in color.
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:27 PM
There were several lights observed. The sky was as dark as ever, and the lights traversed at a low altitude.
And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.
Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.
Saw it somewhat often in LA caused by the the thin inversion layer of smog being hit by searchlights for various happenings.
And yes, at the right angles it does look like very fast moving objects.
And yes, with multiple searchlights it does look like that video you posted.
And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.
Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.
Yes so have I. At the break of dusk maybe, not when there has been sufficient time for the radiation of the sun to traverse before there is absolute darkness.
And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.
Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.
Saw it somewhat often in LA caused by the the thin inversion layer of smog being hit by searchlights for various happenings.
And don't mistake light from the moon onto clouds. That is a secondary effect.
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:30 PM
No, I saw it from searchlights.
Not uncommon back in the 50s around DC would be my guess.
And yes, with multiple searchlights it does look like that video you posted.
Seriously, study the evidence first.
The object(s) traversed a great deal of land before they settled at their final resting place. Beside's, you would notice the beam from a searchlight. None of which you can see here.
I can give you old 1940's pics of searchlights where the bean is seen. These were not searchlights for certain!
In case you don't believe me, here is what a search light is, taken from a very famous war time UFO incident which I have been preparing a thread on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Los_Angeles_LATimes.jpg
adoucette
12-07-11, 04:40 PM
In case you don't believe me, here is what a search light is, taken from a very famous war time UFO incident which I have been preparing a thread on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Los_Angeles_LATimes.jpg
Depends on how clear the air is.
I've seen searchlights that weren't observable like that, only on what they hit.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0D15FC3A5810738DDDAB0A94D9415B818EF1D3
depends on how clear the air is.
I've seen searchlights that weren't observable like that, only on what they hit.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=fb0d15fc3a5810738dddab0a94d9415b818ef1d3
rubbish.com
Unless we are talking about fog, in which case, neither of my cases are impacted by that. Plus, considering the absolute point's made, I doubt even in fog they could make such a distinguished dot!
I'd just be quiet if i WAS YOU. Some of your explanations are getting just as embarrasing as Phlogs.
Look -- search lights do not add up. to many inconspicuous accounts which for search lights would need to be accounted for. Give it up.
I don't know where it came from but apparently neither do you.
Let me give a brief hostory of the accounts here.
Read Only said the video was faked. When I said it was not, someone said it was, saying that the video was from Xfiles (along with that there was no witness accounts of the lights - including a few other dubious statements).
Well, I cannot say for sure the evidnece was from Xfiles, however, when pressed the person never even revealed the source of their claims which makes every passing moment of this even more dubious. But what makes me ultimately suspect of this claim, is that the link said there was no evidence of eye-witness accounts which is demonstrably untrue!
There are radar accounts and eye-witness accounts. which flies in the credibility of the alleged statement, again, which was not even cited, which I have asked loads of times for evidnece for.
adoucette
12-07-11, 06:18 PM
Let me give a brief hostory of the accounts here.
Read Only said the video was faked. When I said it was not, .
I know the history.
YOU claimed it was an actual video of the event.
YOU have not proved that it was and indeed YOU appear to have no idea of the source of the video.
The fact that the event occurred in 1952 and the video is in COLOR argues strongly against it being real.
The legend on the bottom suggests it was from a TV show.
I know the history.
YOU claimed it was an actual video of the event.
YOU have not proved that it was and indeed YOU appear to have no idea of the source of the video.
The fact that the event occurred in 1952 and the video is in COLOR argues strongly against it being real.
The legend on the bottom suggests it was from a TV show.
I actually said the colour no doubt was a buffed part of redigitilization.
I did say this. Go check my posts.
Anyway, adding color to videos add's no evidence against. Many old black and white movies have color added later.
''YOU have not proved that it was and indeed YOU appear to have no idea of the source of the video.''
Actually, the video was added afterwards to the OP. The OP is sufficient evidence, as I have expalained, the video was added for taste at best. If there could be a video added later, why wouldn't I?
''The legend on the bottom suggests it was from a TV show.''
TOTALLY WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG.
Airforce documents no doubt, and airforce officials would deny this statement entirely!
Seriously, that last post is an illustration of your innability to understand how official this and other events are!!!!!!!
Just tells me you are a worse skeptic than those I have confronted since my time being here. Atleast I know most of the skeptics here would not deny the event even happened! The event is not hearsay. It actually happened!
It actually happened!
But as has just been shown, we have no evidence of that.
Just a lot of rantings.
go away. I've exhausted and proven wrong many skeptics here.
You have shadowed within the last half hour of every1 of my posts, just because I stated the obvious about you.
Why say in your avatar ''proving cranks is useless, if you spend all day doing just that, isn't that a form of trolling'' .... worse than that, you are now coming into threads, expressing your opinion about subjects you ahve ZERO knowledge on.
Even better than that, and I can't even believe I am saying this, but Arioch no doubt has a better understanding of these subjects. He doesn't even check the facts, but when he is corrected, he is usually silent to it. You on the otherhand have came in here willy nilly to express what???
...maybe your discontempt to my initial wordings to you?
go away. I've exhausted and proven wrong many skeptics here.
You have shadowed within the last half hour of every1 of my posts, just because I stated the obvious about you.
Why say in your avatar ''proving cranks is useless, if you spend all day doing just that, isn't that a form of trolling'' .... worse than that, you are now coming into threads, expressing your opinion about subjects you ahve ZERO knowledge on.
Even better than that, and I can't even believe I am saying this, but Arioch no doubt has a better understanding of these subjects. He doesn't even check the facts, but when he is corrected, he is usually silent to it. You on the otherhand have came in here willy nilly to express what???
...maybe your discontempt to my initial wordings to you?
But you still haven't provided any evidence, just shifted the emphasis to your claim of persecution.
You still haven't learned the difference between evidence and proof. You gargle nonesense in the name of scence, but choke on the sand in which you and your non-mathematical followers have spent in your play-pen of idiosyncratic methodologies... that I might even throw some rattles into your play pen so you might enjoy yourself in you caliginous world were the evidence is blatent but you refuse to accept at all costs.
You speak exactly like Stewie, your avatar.
I'd rather speak like a baby with intelligence, than without!
Aqueous Id
12-07-11, 09:56 PM
I can recommend another approach to analyzing this scenario.
Forget everything else you know and believe about this. Look only at the year, the era. What was the U.S. up to its eyeballs in? Cold War programs. Let me refer you to Chapter 1 of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine) relating a specific victim of MKULTRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA) under Donald Cameron's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron) reign of terror.
It is entirely conceivable that the Air Force may have had a Cameron equivalent. If so, who's to say they didn't stage the whole thing?
Every witness could have been a lackey for their program.
I can recommend another approach to analyzing this scenario.
Forget everything else you know and believe about this. Look only at the year, the era. What was the U.S. up to its eyeballs in? Cold War programs. Let me refer you to Chapter 1 of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine) relating a specific victim of MKULTRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA) under Donald Cameron's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron) reign of terror.
It is entirely conceivable that the Air Force may have had a Cameron equivalent. If so, who's to say they didn't stage the whole thing?
Every witness could have been a lackey for their program.
I will approach this tomorrow. The troll-like disease ridden acts of alex has once hit the thread like a plauge.
No evidence. Just more rantings.
You wouldn't know evidence if it came and knocked you off your flying carpet!
Flying carpets. So that's what the sightings are.
Notice how upset UFO nuts theorists get when you ask for evidence.
Don't delude yourself. I am hardly upset. More frustrated with the fact that you are blatently ignoring any evidence that has been shown in the past.
That's all.
adoucette
12-08-11, 09:40 AM
go away. I've exhausted and proven wrong many skeptics here.
Yes you are a legend in your own mind.
I actually said the colour no doubt was a buffed part of redigitilization.
I did say this. Go check my posts.
No doubt?
What a laugh since you have no actual knowledge that color was ever added, do you?
Indeed you have NO IDEA where the original video came from, do you?
''The legend on the bottom suggests it was from a TV show.''
TOTALLY WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG.
Airforce documents no doubt, and airforce officials would deny this statement entirely!
Seriously, that last post is an illustration of your innability to understand how official this and other events are!!!!!!!
Just tells me you are a worse skeptic than those I have confronted since my time being here. Atleast I know most of the skeptics here would not deny the event even happened! The event is not hearsay. It actually happened!
LOL, I said the VIDEO was likely from a TV show, I didn't say the EVENT didn't happen.
Still the fact that the event happened doesn't mean that there were aliens involved, which is what you are so desperately trying to prove and failing at it miserably.
Arthur
Well I'd put observing the object in the sky as the primary evidence, but let's not quibble.
lets
No, the light from the sun is evidence that the sun radiates light energy.
we are aware of the sun because the object radiates energy that are picked up by our sense organs. it is the first and most immediate mode of perception by which we infer that an object is there
Light can both be seen from what it reflects off of or what it radiates from.
Because light can pass through the atmosphere without being visible, one can't necessarily tell, at a distance if one is seeing the generation or the reflection of a light.
So the reality is that no evidence has been given as to what created the lights that were seen, and since we know that light can come from a LONG way off, one can't use the presence of fast moving LIGHTS to presume the speed of an object.
For instance, one could project a spotlight on a distant object, and just by a relatively slow movement of the projector create the appearance of a very fast moving object.
Which is why limited evidence can also be misleading.
a strawman. i am not disputing any of that
adoucette
12-08-11, 04:50 PM
i am not disputing any of that
http://frigginrandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/64bitworld.jpg
Still the fact that the event happened doesn't mean that there were aliens involved, which is what you are so desperately trying to prove and failing at it miserably.
Arthur
Not just any TV show, someone claimed it was the Xfiles. My natural response was ''show me the link'' as the passage which had this claim, also claimed there was no eyewitnesses lol --- along with two other suspect claims, one maybe not so suspect in error, but missing important details.
And I have never stated aliens per say. I believe in them, I believe that they have visited. I am open to the idea of something else, but other explanations run thin, especially in the Washington 1952 case.
I mean if that was their own assertions, I can shoot down the contention that no one actually observed the lights. If the TV show Xfiles was their assertion and was worried that no one can trace it, well, give me the episode number and I'll watch it. I have every episode.
I think they should also be careful, that if the video is actually real, that the Xfiles never took the video for their production, rather than producting the video for the show. The video linked as well looks older than an Xfiles episode, arguably.
But hey, I am open to being wrong in this case. As I have said to Geoff, it is possible that the video is fake. But... I have seen no one come forward with that claim yet with proof, or linked evidence to the qoutes presented.
I don't even require proof. I require evidence, which speaks the magnanimity of my actions than those given here recently, especially after the resident troll alex.
adoucette
12-10-11, 05:48 PM
But hey, I am open to being wrong in this case. As I have said to Geoff, it is possible that the video is fake. But... I have seen no one come forward with that claim yet with proof, or linked evidence to the qoutes presented.
I don't even require proof. I require evidence, which speaks the magnanimity of my actions than those given here recently, especially after the resident troll alex.
No.
You have offered NO PROOF at all that the video is real or has anything to do with this event.
Indeed, in your link, no one claims to have seen lights like these over the WH, let alone filmed them.
Are you blind, I just said I have no proof. Why are you saying I haven't provided any? In all my years of reading up on this subject, not once have I seen anyone offer tangible, hard proof.
adoucette
12-18-11, 12:37 PM
Are you blind, I just said I have no proof. Why are you saying I haven't provided any? In all my years of reading up on this subject, not once have I seen anyone offer tangible, hard proof.
That was in reference to the video where you say:
it is possible that the video is fake. But... I have seen no one come forward with that claim yet with proof,.
So you are asking for proof that the video is fake.
But the burden is on YOU to provide proof that the video is real, not for us to prove it isn't
Excuse me!!!! I never stated the video was fabricated.
The fact of the matter is, someone came in with a small paragraph with about three errors enclosed in the same presumption that the video came from an X-Files episode.
Well, I haven't claimed anything. That person should have responded to my (five or six) requests for the site address this claim was taken from. In the meanwhile, we have fools like you saying the purdon of proof is all on me.
Well, bub, I'm afraid it isn't. I gather the evidence and testimony I do with clear links to their origins. If a skeptic comes in here and claims something, it is their burden for proof, not me.
adoucette
12-18-11, 12:56 PM
Well, I haven't claimed anything. That person should have responded to my (five or six) requests for the site address this claim was taken from. In the meanwhile, we have fools like you saying the purdon of proof is all on me.
This is the 2nd post in this thread.
Here is original video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D326UXwubKA&feature=related
With nothing in that link that says where it came from, who took it etc.
Still YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL VIDEO.
So of course the burden of proof of that claim is on YOU.
This is the 2nd post in this thread.
With nothing in that link that says where it came from, who took it etc.
Still YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL VIDEO.
So of course the burden of proof of that claim is on YOU.
It should be said ''the claimed video.''
And you are forgetting that if there was any evidence to state it was not, then if that person offers evidence, they must prove without any reasonable doubt that such a claim is not bogus. If a skeptic cannot suitably reference their sources and cite their qoutes, then I cannot be held to blame for insufficient evidence.
Go figure.
adoucette
12-18-11, 01:55 PM
It should be said ''the claimed video.''
And you are forgetting that if there was any evidence to state it was not, then if that person offers evidence, they must prove without any reasonable doubt that such a claim is not bogus. If a skeptic cannot suitably reference their sources and cite their qoutes, then I cannot be held to blame for insufficient evidence.
Go figure.
Not sure what you were trying to say, but the way this works is the person presenting the evidence, in this case YOU, has the burden of proving the video's authenticity.
In any case it didn't take to long to track this down.
It's a CG recreation for a History Channel show.
See your "original video" at 5:12 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1azkhXLYkk
You don't know what I am saying?
Well I have zero evidence from the skeptical side that the video is a fake. If there was any question to it, any evidence that has been brought foward seems as if it cannot be substantiated. The reason why is because the [skeptic] who made the claim has not cited after five attempts to ask them to come forward. Since none of that has been provided, explain to me then how it is my burden of proof on the subject?
I have no burdon of proof because there is no evidence against. If you can find evidence against, you bring it forward. There was no question of this until the point someone posted a dodgey paragraph taken from god knows where.
adoucette
12-18-11, 08:00 PM
The video was made by the History Channel.
I have no burdon of proof because there is no evidence against
You just don't get it, do you?
If you make the claim, you must provide evidence to substantiate the claim.
If I were to claim you were a murder and child pornographer, I'd have to provide the evidence. Otherwise I can simply make the claim and say to you 'show me evidence you aren't'.
phlogistician
12-19-11, 08:39 AM
Well I have zero evidence from the skeptical side that the video is a fake.
You've been shown the source of the video, a documentary from the History channel, where they do NOT claim it to be actual footage. It's rather dishonest of them to not clearly state it's a recreation, but then they do sex things up all too often. Use some discernment, and some critical thinking, and try ans understand what you are being shown, and more importantly, WHY.
You've been shown the source of the video, a documentary from the History channel, where they do NOT claim it to be actual footage. It's rather dishonest of them to not clearly state it's a recreation, but then they do sex things up all too often. Use some discernment, and some critical thinking, and try ans understand what you are being shown, and more importantly, WHY.
When?
I have kept a usually good eye on this topic. May I see this link. I must have missed it, in the meantime, do I need to repeat what I said to Geoff? Just to rehash, the video is probably a fake. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be a fake. But in the meantime, I simply was not going to believe it was a fake, just because someone claimed it. Neither did it excuse the fact that there are then 2 existing errors in the literature which also claimed it, one notible one is claiming there was no eye-wittnesses to the lights, which is clearly an erreneous statement.
Now, if that is us finished on the validity of the video which has captured your imaginations so vividly, may we move on and now continue with the actual event which was historically documented in wikipedia.
adoucette
12-19-11, 09:53 AM
when?
lol
phlogistician
12-19-11, 10:00 AM
lol
It's right under his nose, and he can't see it!
He'd never be able to find a UFO!!!!!!!
It's right under his nose, and he can't see it!
He'd never be able to find a UFO!!!!!!!
Right. Ok, that might have something to do with me qouting you, not them. I now have it and am about to watch it.
Not sure what you were trying to say, but the way this works is the person presenting the evidence, in this case YOU, has the burden of proving the video's authenticity.
In any case it didn't take to long to track this down.
It's a CG recreation for a History Channel show.
See your "original video" at 5:12 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1azkhXLYkk
Where in the video did it say it was a reconstruction, all documentaries state this if the video is in question....
Also the original member here who said it was fake, said it came from an X-Files episode... what happened to that statement?
adoucette
12-19-11, 10:06 AM
I give up.
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep
I give up.
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep
You give up on what? I am asking where the use of the video is remaked as being a reconstruction. That is the etiquette of documentaries like this.
I am also asking where is the original claim saying it was from an X-Files documentary.
What you have offered is not proof of the video being constructed for that program. I have a little evidence it might have been, with no direct statement saying it had, which is odd. They usually do.
Well?
You must have known this was going to be the reponse, with no indication in the documentary (as far as I have seen) to it's origins. A true investigator would not look at your link and contend you must be true withouut some literature on the video. Which is an odd case, because in all documentaries I can think of, purposefully created video's and remakes are remarked always as such. They are never kept blank unless of course, it is a real video. But then that is suspect because a lot of the time it will tell you it is the real video as well.
Look, I am not accepting that as of yet. Find more evidence supporting it is a remake of the event and not some shadey looking video included in a documentary just because they felt like it.
adoucette
12-19-11, 10:51 AM
The entire show is FULL of obvious "reconstructions", just like that one.
They don't mention that they are reconstructions, but then they probably like the fact that people like you can't tell the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCaO4WNC6Y&feature=related
I am not at liberty to make judgements on things that are of personal direction. I will not contend either way on the video until proper bona fide evidence has been distributed here.
adoucette
12-19-11, 12:11 PM
I am not at liberty to make judgements on things that are of personal direction. I will not contend either way on the video until proper bona fide evidence has been distributed here.
You already did.
You claimed it was in fact the original video.
But it was presented in a History channel show were all the other videos were clearly reconstructions.
So to contend that it is real requires YOU to provide evidence of same.
Again, it is YOU who are claiming it is real.
Burden is on YOU.
I claimed it was the video of the sighting. It was until afterwards I decided it is still possible the video is faked. I am certainly allowed to change my hypothesis. This was done a while back.
But if someone comes and claims something against, learn whose defense it is. If it was not made by me, then no burden is on me. The skeptic and the believer are both subject to these rules. Not just me.
adoucette
12-19-11, 12:40 PM
But if someone comes and claims something against, learn whose defense it is. If it was not made by me, then no burden is on me. The skeptic and the believer are both subject to these rules. Not just me.
Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You claimed it was real video to start with and as of yet you have posted NOTHING to substantiate that.
In the mean time I found that it was from a TV show which is comprised of obvious recreations of events, which were not identified as recreations (though it probably is in the small print at the end of the actual show) .
So, in the absence of any proof that the video is real, it's just one more of the recreations.
Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Fascinating and yet such a typical skeptic wish-wash response.
Trust me, if that is certainly true, then it should not be difficult then for you to provide the proper arguement against, with proper evidence to fit.
phlogistician
12-20-11, 06:40 AM
Fascinating and yet such a typical skeptic wish-wash response.
Trust me, if that is certainly true, then it should not be difficult then for you to provide the proper arguement against, with proper evidence to fit.
Listen kid, you got busted. You offered a 'video' that's just not contemporaneous with the event, and then Artur finds it's a bit of filler for an entertainment program, and they make no claim as to it being real. SO IT WAS JUST FLUFF, not fact. Get it? Entertainment FLUFF. You might as well show a clip from 'E.T. The Extraterrestrial', because as far as I recall, there's no disclaimer at the beginning!
Listen kid, you got busted. You offered a 'video' that's just not contemporaneous with the event, and then Artur finds it's a bit of filler for an entertainment program, and they make no claim as to it being real. SO IT WAS JUST FLUFF, not fact. Get it? Entertainment FLUFF. You might as well show a clip from 'E.T. The Extraterrestrial', because as far as I recall, there's no disclaimer at the beginning!
Busted LOL
Phlog, sir, you are deluded. I haven't been caught out on anything. The poster has changed their claims twice. Once proclaiming that it came from the X-Files, second time around, the poster ellucidated that it comes from a documentary without fail this time, a link provided. The link unfortunately does not even have documented proof of it saying it was a recreation of an event... totall nada, the big goose egg.
Whose been caught out? I admitted the video could be a fake, but equally I have seen no discerning proof to suggest it is not. Only one dodgy documentary which does not make clear from fact or fiction!
:bugeye:
adoucette
12-20-11, 07:21 AM
Busted LOL
Phlog, sir, you are deluded. I haven't been caught out on anything.
Yes you have Mister.
YOU claimed it was "The Original Video" and so it's up to YOU to provide proof that it is real, not for us to prove it's not real.
In the absence of you providing proof that it is real, it means NOTHING.
My finding it as part of a History Channel fluff piece on UFOs filled with recreations doesn't help your position at all.
phlogistician
12-20-11, 07:22 AM
but equally I have seen no discerning proof to suggest it is not. Only one dodgy documentary which does not make clear from fact or fiction!
Listen kid, you've made a fool of yourself. The footage is just fluff from an entertainment show. It's filler, fluff, nothing real.
BUSTED!
And as I have also stated, later, but not too much later, that the video might be faked.
That part you all seem to be ignoring, or are so deluded that I never figured that out either. But at the same time, if someone wants to prove against which you have you better equip yourself more efficiently in the future to rebuttal such a claim.
Failure to do so, will not prove me wrong in the slightest. This arguement of the video has become a favourable straw man for skeptics in this post, as if the video would be found erreneous would somehow destroy the claim that the event even happened! LOL
adoucette
12-20-11, 07:50 AM
And as I have also stated, later, but not too much later, that the video might be faked.
Might be faked?
LOL
If someone took those pictures that day, then at least STILLS from them would be on the front pages of the newspapers and that short video would have been shown in the newsreels played in the theaters back then.
None of that happened.
It's a recreation.
But what is so funny, is even after finding it was part of a History Channel tv show, you still aren't sure it isn't real, so clearly your ability to detect BS is minimal at best.
Which brings us back to all the inane threads you have started.
Time to toss away childish things.
Might be faked?
LOL
.
Well, I did notice a reasonable high color resolution which would not be present in those times. I did account that there is evidence it is not entirely fake for this reason since old 1930's cartoons which had been black and white had been digitally remastered in effect of a color program.
Because of this, and as childish as I am, I was sure there was a slight deficiency in believing wholey it was an original.
phlogistician
12-20-11, 07:55 AM
And as I have also stated, later, but not too much later, that the video might be faked.
But you didn't even bother to read the debunking of it on the YouTube page itself, before posting it here.
You show no signs of discernment or critical thinking, you are completely unable to analyse anything, even when it's right under your nose!
I don't know how. how do you debunk a youtube video, without all the obvious staring in your face?
I asked you once before, teach me in how to do it, and you replied along the effects of, ''I am not a teacher''!
Well, with that aside, the skeptics should have been aware when the link was given, if a documentary does not discern fact from fiction, then it cannot be attributed as proof, but rather an evidence or lack thereof lol
adoucette
12-20-11, 08:08 AM
I don't know how. how do you debunk a youtube video, without all the obvious staring in your face?
The KEY is you can't post a link to a YouTube video that you have no knowledge of where it came from, when it was taken etc etc and in your post state:
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL VIDEO.
Why do YOU not take responsibility for this obvious lack of critical thinking?
It is not sufficient to later say that "it might be faked".
You still suggest by that, that it might be real as well.
But you have absolutely no evidence that it is a video of the real event and you have a lot of evidence suggesting it is a recent recreation.
Might this same lack of critical analysis be affecting your acceptance of other "evidence" that is equally lacking in foundation or that has a much more parsimonious explanation?
I am so glad you are so aware of such things. Maybe you should give a class on detective work.
Perhaps maybe videos relating actual footage of princess diana's death should be tackled as well, since we cannot afford any fakes.
adoucette
12-20-11, 09:16 AM
I am so glad you are so aware of such things. Maybe you should give a class on detective work.
LOL
You posted the link to the Video claiming it was THE ORIGINAL.
With just a little bit of "detective work" I found the video segment in a History Channel TV show.
Yeah, you could use a class.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.