Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Mar 31, 2015.
In 1952 the White House flap.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And what do your case files present against?
Obviously not incontrovertible. Try again.
Obviously a complete fail. Try again.
This should be reported - except that I don't report posts - ever.
I'm sorry I don't quite understand your answer to my question - and it's not due solely to the execrable grammar.
Could you rephrase it please?
You cannot be certain that it is anything without further proof.
People used to be convinced that aliens and their UFO's were from Mars. They too were certain. We know they are wrong.
How can you be certain it is not fake? Or a plane? Or something else entirely? Like balloons, for example?
Which is the point I was making.
You are incapable of being objective and you cannot understand why people might question or look for other explanations first before jumping to conclusions. Which is exactly what you do.
You want to believe so much, that the explanation could be more mundane is inconceivable to you.
The point is that you don't know anything about what those kids saw. All you heard were words from people who are so biased that they have altered these kid's experience to match their own and their own beliefs. You did it as well when you completely disregarded what one of those kids said because it didn't fit into the narrative that they were all terrified and ran screaming to their teachers, when they actually did not if the children themselves are to be believed.
For you to complain that people are denying anything without even looking into it, when you consistently refuse to acknowledge scientific explanations for a phenomena because it doesn't fit into what you want it to be is laughable.
You need to be more objective and discount everything it could be. But you don't do that. And that's where you are failing and will continue to fail.
You refuse to entertain that it is a possibility. Much like the religious zealots who are certain that God is real.
It was the weather.
In 1952, Washington, D.C. became the only American city in history to be invaded by an alien fleet. On July 19, city air traffic controllers noticed a cluster of weird blips on their radar screens. When they contacted nearby planes to ask if they had seen anything unusual, one pilot responded that he’d seen six bright lights “streaking across the sky.” But this was only the beginning.
When the weird blips returned a week later, jets scrambled to intercept. The pilots reported glowing lights that flew away from them. The encounter made all the papers. After all, what could possibly jam up radar screens and escape from pilots except real UFOs?
How about temperature inversions? A layer of cold air trapped under a layer of warm air, temperature inversions are capable of some weird things—including turning up on radar screens. They can also create illusions, especially if there’s a handy layer of moisture trapped there to reflect ground lights back at unsuspecting pilots. And the conditions in Washington that summer just happened to be perfect for moisture-loaded temperature inversions.
An example of how weather can affect vision and make things appear to be something else entirely:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Note the inversion and what it does to the Earth's horizon?
And see that little black dot there just off center?
UFO or something else MR? What do you think it is?
From the website:
"The black dot is a Chinook helicopter from Odiham."
I could post that here and told you it was a UFO and you'd have believed me.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Astronomer and columnist for Astronomy Magazine, Bob Berman, wrote something similar in his book:
Given that's England in the photo (I recognised the hedge down on the left even before you mentioned Odiham) that's probably not a Wokka at all: it'll be another f*cking cloud working itself into a rainstorm.
Nope. That was the lie put out by the airforce. Here's how it was debunked:
"Almost from the moment of General Samford's press conference, eyewitnesses, UFO researchers, and Air Force personnel came forward to criticize the temperature inversion/mirage explanation. Captain Ruppelt noted that Major Fournet and Lt. Holcomb, who disagreed with the Air Force's explanation, were not in attendance at Samford's press conference. Ruppelt himself discovered that "hardly a night passed in June, July, and August in 1952 that there wasn't a [temperature] inversion in Washington, yet the slow-moving, solid radar targets appeared on only a few nights."
According to a story printed by INS, the United States Weather Bureau also disagreed with the temperature inversion hypothesis, one official stating that "such an inversion ordinarily would appear on a radar screen as a steady line, rather than as single objects as were sighted on the airport radarscope."
Also, according to Ruppelt, when he was able to interview the radar and control tower personnel at Washington National Airport, not a single person agreed with the Air Force explanation. Michael Wertheimer, a researcher for the government-funded Condon Report, investigated the case in 1966. He found that the radar witnesses still disputed the Air Force explanation, but that did not stop the report from agreeing with the temperature inversion/mirage explanation. Ruppelt related that on July 27 the control tower at Washington National had called the control tower at Andrews AFB and notified them that their radar had an unknown object just south of the Andrews control tower, directly over the Andrews AFB radio range station. According to Ruppelt, when the Andrews control tower personnel looked they all saw "a huge fiery-orange sphere" hovering over the range station. When Ruppelt interviewed the tower personnel several days later, they insisted that they had been mistaken and had merely seen a bright star. However, when Ruppelt checked an astronomical chart he found that there were no bright stars over the station that night, and that he had "heard from a good source that the tower men had been 'persuaded' a bit" by superior officers to claim that their sighting was merely a star.
There were also witnesses who claimed to see structured craft and not merely "glows" or bright lights. On July 19 an Army artillery officer, Joseph Gigandet, was sitting on the front porch of his home in Alexandria, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington. At 9:30 p.m. he claimed to see "a red cigar-shaped object" which sailed slowly over his house. Gigandet estimated the object's size as comparable to a DC-7 airplane at about 10,000 feet altitude; he also claimed that the object had a "series of lights very closely set together" on its sides. The object eventually flew back over his house a second time, which led Gigandet to assume that it was circling the area. When the object flew away a second time, it turned a deeper red color and moved over the city of Washington itself; this occurred less than two hours before Edward Nugent first spotted the unknown objects on his radar at Washington National. Gigandet claimed that his neighbor, an FBI agent, also saw the object. Dr.James E. McDonald, a physicist at the University of Arizona and a prominent ufologist in the 1960s, did his own analysis of the Washington sightings. After interviewing four pilot eyewitnesses and five radar personnel, McDonald argued that the Air Force explanation was "physically impossible." Harry Barnes told McDonald that the radar targets "were not shapeless blobs such as one gets from ground returns under anomalous propagation", and that he was certain the unknown radar blips were solid targets; Howard Cocklin agreed with Barnes."====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident
Wow..A helicopter? Must mean ufos don't exist then. lol!
What evidence? Are you kidding me? Get back with me after you've studied the evidence for few says, because you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So what? That doesn't mean ufos are fake. It doesn't logically follow at all in fact.
By the incredible speeds these things fly, often thousands of miles an hour. By their sudden change of direction. By their shape and size, many shaped like saucers, cigars, and triangles. And by their consistent silent running. Or else a low unfamiliar hum.
I rule out the mundane long before presenting anything here. I only present the best documented cases. There's nothing you can suggest about these things that I haven't already considered and found inadequate. That comes from years of personal study. Something you should do before telling me what to believe.
Since ufos exist, the mundane isn't the only explanation there is. It's certainly one of them, but one we rule out before concluding alien craft.
I know exactly what those kids saw. They told us what they saw. Their reports were all taken a day after the event occurred, and 35 pictures were drawn before the ufo investigator arrived that day. We go by what the witnesses say, not by what you or some other armchair skeptic wants it to be.
There is no scientific explanation for these 4 compelling examples I gave. None at all. That's why I selected them.
Bullshit. I discount all sorts of accounts I see reported on the web and on youtube. I know a plane at night when I see it. I know what a metallic balloon looks like at 2000 feet. And I know what meteors look like. Alien craft look nothing like these things. They have common characteristics that clue us as to their identity. If you knew about this field, you'd know this already. But you don't. Like all skeptics you speak out of ignorance.
Still waiting for the mundane explanations for these events that I've somehow overlooked. Why aren't you giving us them? Simple. Because there isn't one, however much you want there to be one. You're just going to have to live with the fact that ufos are real, that we don't know where they come from, and that they defy mundane explanation.
Wrong - the method still applies there and here. It is merely modified to allow functionality within the scope of the metaphysical.
"Acceptable evidence for claims in this sub-forum includes the use of biblical texts and passages.
In general, this forum will be given a pass on the scientific method, as the very nature of discussions going on within are of a metaphysical standard, and thus are difficult, if not outright impossible, to "prove".
Thank you for recounting what was posted... where does that say it is exempt?
If my terminology/phrasing is inadequate or unclear, then I apologize - to me, giving a pass on something means the rules are loosened. That doesn't mean removed or exempted. If my understanding of that phrase is incorrect, again, I apologize and will update it to be more clear.
There we go again. More total intellectual dishonesty.
We all know UFOs exist. And there is always a remote possibility that we may have at some time been visited in the past by Aliens.
But as of the 18/8/2015 at 0838hrs, we have no evidence of such.
Although we have plenty of evidence of UFOs
But again, no evidence that they are extra terrestrial in origin or controlled by advanced Aliens.
Now those facts may get all hot and bothered, emotional and see you fly off on one of your tantrums again, but that's the way it is.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not some crazy half baked idea that every UFO is of Alien origin.
The facts that totally over ride all your fabricated fairy tales, and sightings and anal probings, all of course observed in out of the way places, or to a group of impressionable gullible school children is the following my dear friend.
Any Alien controlled craft to visit Earth, would be in advance of us and our technologies.
They would be intelligent enough to realise that our species was on the verge of space travel.
Why would they, while realising that we were not just dumb animals, but also an advanced civilisation, not make proper contact by radio or whatever means, and announce their arrival? Why would they not land in Central park in New York, or Hyde Park in London or Sydney......or to the seat of government.
They would not need to be afraid of us, and I really don't believe if such a scenario was on the cards that we would be hostile towards them. [unless of course they were openly aggressive]
See? That's the reasonable logical assessment of what any Alien origin visitor would do.....Certainly not the out of the way visitations to gullible individuals and children, nor any kidnapping and anal probing or anything similar.
Put those gullible unlikely scenarios with the facts that people do suffer from hallucinations, atmospheric disturbances do occur with startling effects, people playing tricks, balloons, dust, cloud formations, and a myriad of other legitimate alternatives, and your imaginary alien origin UFOs are just simply a figment of your imagination, lack of critical research, and simply down right defiance due to your obvious evidenced anti science stance.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh sure you did! Just as you have for Bigfoot or some appartition or smudgy photograph or Poltergeist.
I don't believe you for one moment.
The most likely logical reasons for your Aliens, Bigfoots, ghosts and Poltergeists, is that you are impressionable and gullible far more than most [forgetting Tonto]
And after believing such nonsense for so long, you are now unable to accept any other alternative, under any circumstances.
There is a medical name for such conditions.
What is it with you and anal probing?
Because this seems to be a running theme with you and you keep introducing it into these discussions.
For example, from previous UFO threads:
MR responds to that comment and ignores your anal probe comments:
What do you do?
Keep at it:
And again, despite others trying to discuss the subject while ignoring your continued reference to anal probing, you just kept right at it..
And it wasn't just one thread. Here too:
I click on a random page and there you are:
Not to mention in this thread, when you decided to make an offensive and very homophobic remark.
He isn't making any such about anal probing claims. You are. Repeatedly.
And not just in the Fringe sub-sections. You also tried to pull this offensive stunt in the science forums as well:
There are plenty more. Around 60 returns on google alone, for just this site and in each instance, you are the one that introduces it. So what's the deal?
Why do you think this is appropriate? What part of you believes this is appropriate?
Separate names with a comma.