Trapped What evidence? You may have seen a UFO, but UFOs are not Alien spacecraft unless and until you provide some evidence beyond your obvious credulity and gullibility. Actually, the ghost sightings are EXACTLY as real as any alien encounter, there's nothing but claims for either. That is purest bovine poo, a fabrication, a stupid fabrication. Quote required here to prove you are not just a lying piece of garbage. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see where you are going with this. Let's not take your word for it. Show me this evidence. Are there any secret memorandums that the government have released proving their existences? Sorry... but if the UFO phenomenon just relied on eye witness testimony and photographic evidence alone, I would have no case. And no, there are no video evidences of ghosts, unless you consider those ''orb ghost'' images to qualify as evidence, even though it can be recreated by specks of dust which passes the lenses reflecting a quantity of light giving off the impression it is something abnormal. I have a very clear mind on the subject of conspiracy theories. The evidence for the UFO phenomenon, is overwhelming and it comes nothing to whatever there exists supporting the ghost phenomenon, if there is barely anything. We have radar confirmation as well they exist, so we have physical evidence of their nature, something which unfortunately, a ghost could never give us. So as far as ''within the realms of science'' the ghost phenomenon has nothing on the UFO phenomenon. Please stop trying to spread propaganda about the subject by making lame comparisons with questionable conspiracy theories when really there is very convincing evidence to support the UFO phenomenon. You are not fooling me so I will certainly not let you fool anyone else.
I'm not going through it all again... you know what evidence there is. Over a hundred years of eye-witness testimony by some of the most respectable people in society, some whose integrity is impossible to question. We have years and years of radar evidence purporting to these things we can't do. The evidence has been laid all out before you, but you intentionally ignore it.
They're not even secret! Our own government is saying in public that there are ghosts. ============= Rep. Al Green on Obamacare: ‘I Will Come Back in the Afterlife; I Will Haunt the Congress’ October 7, 2013 - 10:53 AM By Craig Millward Speaking at a rally to demand that Congress end the government shutdown, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said he is “committed to the Affordable Care Act,” and he “will come back in the afterlife” to fight for it. . . . “My followers, listen friends. I am committed to the Affordable Care Act, and I just want you to know this: if for some reason I should have an untimely demise, I want you to know that not only am I going to fight for the Affordable Care Act in this life, I will come back in the afterlife. I will haunt the Congress of the United States of America.” ============================== Let's see what some other government officials have said about ghosts: ============ By far the most frequently reported sighting in the White House over the years has been the ghost--or at least the presence--of the celebrated 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, whose life was cut tragically short by an assassin's bullet in April 1865. Grace Coolidge, wife of President Calvin Coolidge (1923-29), was the first person to say she had actually seen Lincoln's ghost. According to her, the lanky former president was standing looking out a window of the Oval Office, across the Potomac to the former Civil War battlefields beyond. Lady Bird Johnson, wife of President Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), reportedly felt Lincoln's presence one night while watching a television program about his death. Most notably, sightings of Lincoln's ghost were frequently reported during the long administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45), who also presided over his country during a time of great upheaval. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt used the Lincoln Bedroom as her study, and said she would feel his presence when she worked there late at night. During her visit to the White House, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands heard a knock on her bedroom door in the night; when she answered it, she reportedly saw Lincoln's ghost, wearing his top hat, and fainted dead away. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who visited the White House more than once during World War II, told a story of emerging naked from his evening bath smoking his customary cigar, only to find a ghostly Lincoln sitting by the fireplace in his room. When Lillian Rogers Parks, the seamstress, once investigated the sound of someone pacing an upper level of the White House, another staff member told her the room in question had been unoccupied, and "that was old Abe pacing the floor." Psychics have speculated that Lincoln's spirit remains in the White House to be on hand in times of crisis, as well as to complete the difficult work that his untimely death left unfinished. ===================== Hmm. Then you have no case. Really? Even when they show up in darkened rooms? How can a speck of dust reflect light that isn't there? Ghosts are regularly detected with scientific instruments, specifically EMF detectors and IR detectors. These are regular tools in the arsenal of ghost hunters. Thus there is real, hard, scientific evidence for ghosts (at least as much as there is for UFO's.) I don't expect to convince you; you're a true believer. I am just amused at the disdain you have for some equally unlikely theories. Reminds me of the Judean People's Front complaining about what a bunch of losers the People's Front of Judea is.
Let's entertain it for a moment. If people have seen ghosts, there really needs to be a scientific explanation for it and I can think of plenty candidates. The difference between the scientific explanations I will use, is that they won't offend your intelligence. I would offer you a reasonable explanation which is contradictory to the claim we live on after death. You don't do this for me when we talk about UFO's, in fact very seldom do I get an intelligent analysis of the facts. It usually ends up with the sceptics trying to sell me an idea which to any normal sane person, would seem ridiculous. More than improbable in many cases. This is the truth about the discussions.
Trapped Eyewitness to what? An UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT, not ALIENS! Lots of people have seen lots of unidentified things, but NONE of them were ghosts, neither were they aliens... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You missed my countless claims that these objects where doing things in the air we can't do for about 60 years. When you eliminate the possibilities, the likely one remains that it was aliens. You cannot explain or provide evidence that we or any object in the 1950's in the inventory of the military which could intelligently travel at 7000 miles per hour. Because you cannot do this is evidence itself.
Agreed. Either there are really ghosts, or for every one of those thousands of sightings, EMF measurements, thermographs, videos, pictures, and artifacts there is a scientific explanation. Which is more likely? Likewise, either there are really alien visitors to our planet, or for every one of those hundreds of sightings, radar returns, videos, pictures, and artifacts there is a terrestrial explanation. Which is more likely? I have indeed done that. I have even given you an explanation for a UFO I have seen myself. These reasonable explanations only seem to anger you. So in your belief, a spurious radar return is ridiculous and improbable, but space aliens harassing us is a reasonable explanation for the same return. Again, ghost hunters have exactly the same approach to ghosts. They would compare the record (going back thousands of years) and the sightings (which greatly outnumber UFO sightings) and the scientific evidence (including EMF and thermal readings) and laugh in your face if you proposed that UFO's were more likely than ghosts. And that's fine for them, just as your belief in space aliens is fine for you. However, when you post such beliefs on a science board, do not be surprised if the reaction you get is not one of obedient belief.
Here's an article by Sonny Ayran, co-founder of Midwest Paranormal Investigations: ======= Updated Feb. 25, 2001 When in a haunted area many researchers will sometimes pick up an EMF reading. An EMF meter is a device that measures the electromagnetic field of appliances such as microwaves, cellular phones, and television sets. EMF radiation is said to cause cancer. By law, each appliance has a certain amount of EMF it can radiate. What is so interesting is that the area they pick up a reading has no electrical appliances! The readings last only a second and the meters are still. This only occurs in places that are haunted. ======== How can you explain an EMF reading in a place that has no electrical activity? Since you can't, this is evidence of ghosts.
Trapped Your countless claims are not credible evidence, except for your credulity or your dishonesty. At this point your word is worthless, you've already shown you willingness to stretch the truth 'til it breaks.You have not seen an alien spacecraft, neither has anyone else. All "alien abductees" were lying and not a single dashcam video of something obviously alien(but many, many for a 15 second meteor). Second and third hand gossip is not evidence either. You got nothing. That is idiocy! If you don't have repeatable, solid, valid evidence then no alien spacecraft. Same goes for ghosts, Bigfoot, Unicorns, dragons or any other fancy you want to believe in. Sometimes the answer is "I don't know.". And "I don't know." does not mean"...therefore aliens!" That's just nuts. Magical thinking or not thinking at all, the results are the same. Evidence of what? It's not up to me to validate your wild ass claims, it is your responsibility to provide valid evidence for those claims, something you have so far failed to do. I notice you shut right up about the "sceptics society" you said the head of said there was some kind of conspiracy or coverup, of what you failed to say. Vague innuendo of third party information supported by nothing but claims by you. We're still waiting on that quote. And where did that 7000mph figure come from, your anus? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm starting to think... you might just be thick. I have spoke about this incident for over four weeks and somehow you don't seem to be aware about 7000 mph recorded speeds from the control tower radar evidence of the UFO's above Washington. You're not actually reading anything I write are you? I think almost any sceptic, aside from yourself, would know what I am talking about if I raised it, because I have spoke about it that much. You are clearly not reading anything given to you and then you expect your opinions to be heard?
I haven't seen this evidence either. Is it just word-of-mouth, or are there actual recordings? If so, how does one obtain them?
They will be kept in an archive somewhere. I don't think any respectable UFOlogist or any main sceptics in the business, disagree about there being radar anomalies. This has to be respected. You have to also know, initially this information was kept from the public by the spokesperson of Blue Book.
We have to also respect the integrity of these claims, these are extremely respectful people in very high and important jobs. Clearly there was a consensus that there were real objects in the sky by fellow pilots who desperately tried to catch up with these things. Radar evidence being on top of this was just a bonus.
Are you flooding multiple threads with the same lie to make it harder for people to keep up? It doesn't matter how many times you post the lie or where: it is still a lie. Edit: Actually three lies here : 1. Simultaneous visual sighting and 7000 mph radar speed track. 2. Existence of recorded radar tracks. 3. Consensus that the people involved thought they saw aliens.
Why are you incapable of doing the detective work for yourself? I never said, never have said that the consensus at the time was aliens, in fact, at the time the greatest worry was that it was the Soviets. No doubt aliens had crossed the minds of many and even the military. You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I said there was a growing consensus among scientists that UFO's where probably alien space craft. I have given many citations and statements supporting this. There are no lies about the radar reports or the visual sightings. If you claim they are you better have some evidence, because to be quite frank, the evidence is on my side, that there really was something that happened that day, real objects, seen visually by the Air Force and by ground witnesses and by the control tower on top of their radar evidence. To suggest they are ''all lies'' gives us an idea at what capacity you actually understand this. Or your ability to discern what constitutes as real or fantasy.
Ah. So you haven't seen them, don't know what they are and don't know where they are. They are, in other words, word-of-mouth.
I'm quite capable, but I can't imagine why you'd think I'd be willing to do your work for you! Even if I believed you, I'd still make you show the evidence. So far, the only thing you've shown is a wiki quote that doesn't say what you are claiming. I see, you're just mixing and matching on that claim too: The consensus was "objects", which to them didn't mean aliens, but to you does. Sorry, but that doesn't change your problem. In fact, it makes it worse.
Well no, I haven't seen them but I am by no means going to believe for a moment this is just ''hearsay.'' I report as an investigator, events in general; as a reporter, there are far too many witnesses involved to be mere ''hearsay'' such as the the investigators who in that period of a week who were directly involved in the reports of the radar evidence. I cannot get my hands on all types of information, but if you want to try and get this information, may I suggest you write to control in Washington to see if you can ascertain what will have happened to the radar evidence which would be over 60 years old now.
That gives you no right to ''rephrase'' things I have said. You are really starting to piss me off. How about I go about misquoting things you say? It wouldn't be nice would it?
