Have you ever noticed?...

No UFOs have been seen by astronauts so item 1 is crap.
I suspect that you are misrepresenting the rest of the items as well.

The 'cute' comments are unnecessary. They simply show your lack of understanding of the issues at hand. You've taken what is in print to be correct probably because you want to believe.

When authors resort to defending against debunkers it sets off bells and whistles. That should be an alert to anyone that there is something wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does anyone have any info this Cope Schellhorn. Is he really a professor. Every place I've looked I see the prof. in front of his name, but no credentials. For a while I thought it was a phony article that swirled around the net, but I did find the name as the author of UFO books and as a speaker at a UFO convention.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And why don't the passengers of commercial jets see or photograph these alleged UFOs?

Passengers do not have a reputation to lose, especially if they can back up what they saw with video footage. But we never see such footage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the evidence is in the book.
not my fault you won't read it.

 

they probably have and do.
i'll ask you like i asked stereologist, would you subjugate yourself to the ridicule you and stereologist dish out?

in this case they would be tagged as unreliable, deluded, mistaken, insane, etc.

 

i take it as correct because the people making the reports are reliable and the circumstances are not explainable.

the source for post 109 please.

 

the pilots are making the stink about it.

apparently you can't see that.
something is indeed wrong.

 

Well, first I wouldn't shout 'ALIEN SPACECRAFT!'. I'd upload the video and ask for comments. Second, if it happened on a passenger plane, it's unlikely I'd be the only person to see it. So I doubt there would be ridicule, especially as in context, I would have video or photographic evidence, and other testimonies.

As I would make no claim as to the origin of what I saw, why would I get labelled as such?

I think you are guilty of putting the cart before the horse.

 

can you even hear yourself phlog?
groups of people have seen UFOs, taken pictures, used video cameras, had the sighting verified by radar, and STILL be labeled as deluded, incompetent, had bad vision, hallucinating, etc.

 

ROTFLOL!!!

:shrug:

Just a typical close minded skeptic folks. Not one shred of truth in his statements. Come forth pretender, who are you really MR. Sock? As if we don't all know your trouble making spirit here all too well. I could smell you a mile away. Not one bit of research to back up your priceless refutes. Tremendous comedic relief however. Just empty name calling from a quick tempered skeptic. Sad, but funny.

Truth is: There is most certainly more evidence to suggest an absolute and irrefutable reality for intelligently controlled non human technology than there is for all the ridiculous adverse HYPOTHESIS (not even theories) put forth by the so called, "skeptical scientific community". Truth is, most of these folks don't even understand what science is. To them, Science merely constitutes the safety assured by hindsight.

Ask one of them sometime to name a great scientific achiever that held their league of emotional attitude and short sighted scientific aptitude. Just don't hold your breath.

 

Electrafixtion you post lies, even ridiculous lies. Your claim was trivial to show as patently. Even the UFO big wigs have branded the astronaut tales as frauds. I've quickly, and easily
refuted your rubbish.

You should take the time to learn. It cna be done. You can do it. You can shed your close-minded attitude. I have confidence in you.

The truth is that being a skeptic means I don't fall for the stupidity of beginning with the assumption of alien technology. I look around and see that therer may be wide range of explanations.

Forget the science argument bub - you have no understanding at all.

Fact is you made the astronaut claim and that was a lie. You never even posted evidence. Someone else did. You are a liar.

 

Trying to get everything one in one simple post.

I don't have books like Kehoe's high on my list. I read scientific papers all the time, but I hardly ever read fiction. Actually leopold99 you have taken the baloney hook, link, and sinker. You want to believe and if the author says it is not explainable you believe the author.

When authors resort to defending against debunkers they do it because their evidence is shoddy, misleading, or fraudent.

Post #109 link is: http://dsc.discovery.com/space/qa/alien-ufo-edgar-mitchell.html

Making the claim that people are going to be ridiculed and therefore do not report is nonsense. People report all of the time. Look at video and photo sites online. Look at "America's Stupidest Home Videos." I love to watch people embarrassing themselves. So brave of them to do it.

Claiming that radar verifies the UFO is a misleading statement.

 

Can one of the UFO believers (I am one) help me out? This video is a recollection of ex-USAF pilot who saw a UFO crash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjoyD_4Z2oQ&feature=related

Now there is a map there of where the UFO traveled and where it made a 45 degree sharp turn, at Eden in Texas.

What I need help in is finding magnetosphere data of magnetic fields in that area, they got to be rich in detail

 

referring to kehoes book as fiction without even picking it up is the height of stupidity stereologist, shows how closed minded you actually are.

i haven't taken anything anywhere.
it isn't my fault reliable people reported seeing aerial phenomenon that cannot be explained by physics.

thanks.
care to explain this:
edgar mitchell, Yup, in other words. There was a UFO crash. There was an alien spacecraft. (it's the part you left out of post 109)
and about this link, nowhere in it does he say he never sighted UFOs from space.

tell it to the pilots, they are the ones being ridiculed and harassed.
aircraft controllers are likewise harassed.
i've provided two sources already about this.

stop twisting my words or i'll start reporting you for it.
i said when radar verifies the sighting.
the flight characteristics is what confirms the sighting.

 

He says he never saw the crash but it was reported to him.

Read the following. He states that as part of NASA's flight service he had no sightings. Unless there is another way for him to get into space, like hijacking a UFO, he did not see a UFO in space.

Do you have any proof of harassment other than reports from Kehoe? I don't recall you mentioning another source.

If you wanted to get really off the wall you could mention Cope Schillhorn. He has written about hundreds of murdered UFO observers.

My father built and designed radar bases in the 50s and 60s. He told me about 'angels'. These were blips that did not have physical counterparts. Part of his job was properly tuning the system to minimize showing false positives. He often told me that these 'angels' played funny tricks in the air.

 

he specifically referred to it as an alien spacecraft.
do you believe him?

post 111

i have no idea who cope schillhorn is.

i'm not talking about blips that have no physical counterparts.
i'm talking about sightings that have been verified by radar, quite a difference.

when an observer sees aerial phenomenon that defies any known flight characteristics and that sighting is verified by radar you are dealing with a real object.
so far any attempt to explain these things have been futile.

 

Yeah, like the debunked 'Phoenix Lights' that keeps getting trotted out?

You got a reference to an event that defies explanation, that ticks all the boxes you mentioned?

 

Also, I don't buy this 'people won't come forward because they fear the ridicule' argument, because people do come forward. If not, how else are we getting the reports that we do?

Or is it just credible people that fear coming forward?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All you have to do, is show us some decent video, of a craft doing something that current aircraft cannot do. Can you do that? And please, no blurry STS footage of ice and dust, something with some foreground or background for reference and scale.

Can you do that?

 

'real' and 'object', depends on what you class as 'real', and the 'object' part, well, I object to. We use RADAR to read weather systems. People could see a strange weather formation, and that may get picked up on RADAR. That does not imply an 'object'.

Also, eyewitnesses cannot pin point objects that accurately, and will claim RADAR data coincided with their sighting, when it could have been miles away.

But if you reckon such verifiable data exists, please feel free to provide links to it from credible sources.

 

i classify a "real object" as a figment of a deluded mind phlog.
no, i never seen anything, in print or otherwise, that cannot be explained.