U.S Navy Flight Engineer Saw Silver Discs and Entrance to Alleged E.T and Human Collaboration ...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: draknoir2
Are you really debating the radar cross section of angels? Is that what this forum has come to?

You are a great example, thank you....


Why are angels so preposterous when aliens are not also?

Example of what?

originally posted by: draknoir2

Example of what?

Example of someone who totally disregards one theory and finds it silly, but will embrace another that lacks as much in evidence as the one that is looked at as silly.

Personally I find them both with equal silliness...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: draknoir2

Example of what?

Example of someone who totally disregards one theory and finds it silly, but will embrace another that lacks as much in evidence as the one that is looked at as silly.

Personally I find them both with equal silliness...

Which theory do I "embrace" again? Please link to an example.

originally posted by: draknoir2

Which theory do I "embrace" again? Please link to an example.

Do you ever type more than one or two line lol....

You felt the need to express that the forum has dropped to an all time low with posting Are you really debating the radar cross section of angels? Is that what this forum has come to?

But you seem to not feel the need to express the same sentiment with alien speculations too, why is that? My whole point with angels is that they are as plausible as aliens, and it seems you did not pick up on that...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I consider neither a theory. I consider them both beliefs, one religious and one speculative. But since this is an Aliens and UFO forum, one is on topic while the other is not. Also, the discussion of radar returns from unifentified flying objects is perfectly reasonable while the same can't be said regarding characters from religious mythology.

Does that clear things up?

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Xtrozero

I consider neither a theory. I consider them both beliefs, one religious and one speculative. But since this is an Aliens and UFO forum, one is on topic while the other is not. Also, the discussion of radar returns from unifentified flying objects is perfectly reasonable while the same can't be said regarding characters from religious mythology.

Does that clear things up?

OK, angels riding metal chariots..

It seems everything quickly degenerates from UFO to aliens within about 3 posts and my original post speculated a number closer to home reasons, with angels only coming into play to suggest that aliens have as much proof as angels, but aliens become the instant answer anyways.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I've never conflated UFO's with Aliens.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Aquariusdude

That's a really nice color photograph of 1952 DC... you do realize that is a bit problematic. Unless all those saucers posed for the picture and stayed still while the exposure took place, it's likely a bs photograph.

There are many photographs of the objects in question...And many hit the front page news of major national newspapers at the time....This was a major event that triggered a shootdown order and concern from then president Harry Truman and you say its a b.s photograph? really?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: draknoir2

Which theory do I "embrace" again? Please link to an example.

Do you ever type more than one or two line lol....

You felt the need to express that the forum has dropped to an all time low with posting Are you really debating the radar cross section of angels? Is that what this forum has come to?

But you seem to not feel the need to express the same sentiment with alien speculations too, why is that? My whole point with angels is that they are as plausible as aliens, and it seems you did not pick up on that...

Badgering other forum members on this forum because someone does not agree with you is not nice..Show some respect like other members have shown you.

a reply to: Aquariusdude

That particular photo? Yes...note that I did not comment regarding the event, nor other photos. That particular photo IS bs. Does not mean that the event did not happen. I am 60...heard about that event long ago and have seen some photos. That photo has been manipulated or is a total fabrication.

Think about it: 1952... night time picture. You can clearly see that it was a timed exposure, if you know what to look for. The fact that the "UFO"s do not show any tracer or signs of movement then either A) they stayed motionless during the whole exposure, or B) the pic is bs.

I got into photography pretty heavily in the 70s... the fastest film I could get my hands on was 400. Not saying that the pros could not access faster speeds, but rather that I took my fair share of timed exposures using the 400 speed films. I have no idea what speeds were available in 52...was a bit before my time. I would testify in a court of law that the picture shows definite signs of a long exposure. A long exposure (I dont think minutes, but likely seconds) would result in anything that was moving, such as the well lit UFOs, showing on the film as tracers or smears of movement. Hence...my comment about the UFO's must have "posed" for the shot.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Aquariusdude

That particular photo? Yes...note that I did not comment regarding the event, nor other photos. That particular photo IS bs. Does not mean that the event did not happen. I am 60...heard about that event long ago and have seen some photos. That photo has been manipulated or is a total fabrication.

Think about it: 1952... night time picture. You can clearly see that it was a timed exposure, if you know what to look for. The fact that the "UFO"s do not show any tracer or signs of movement then either A) they stayed motionless during the whole exposure, or B) the pic is bs.

I got into photography pretty heavily in the 70s... the fastest film I could get my hands on was 400. Not saying that the pros could not access faster speeds, but rather that I took my fair share of timed exposures using the 400 speed films. I have no idea what speeds were available in 52...was a bit before my time. I would testify in a court of law that the picture shows definite signs of a long exposure. A long exposure (I dont think minutes, but likely seconds) would result in anything that was moving, such as the well lit UFOs, showing on the film as tracers or smears of movement. Hence...my comment about the UFO's must have "posed" for the shot.

Ufo's have been known to stay still for extended periods amount of time. ...There are many other pictures of the event as well ...

www.iwasabducted.com...

www.iforidiot.com...

www.ufo-reports.com...

Article clip regarding shootdown order
socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Aquariusdude

As I stated before, my remarks were not concerned with the event itself, nor of other pictures.... just that particular photo and my opinion stands. It has either been manipulated or is totally bogus.

The UFOs did in fact go over the White House..

At 11:40 p.m. on Saturday, July 19, 1952, Edward Nugent, an air traffic controller at Washington National Airport (today Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport), spotted seven objects on his radar. The objects were located 15 miles (24 km) south-southwest of the city; no known aircraft were in the area and the objects were not following any established flight paths. Nugent's superior, Harry Barnes, a senior air-traffic controller at the airport, watched the objects on Nugent's radarscope. He later wrote:

We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed . . . their movements were completely radical compared to those of ordinary aircraft.[1]
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."[1]

At this point, other objects appeared in all sectors of the radarscope; when they moved over the White House

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: bbracken677

ok

a reply to: Aquariusdude

The other pictures you linked, look more genuine. You can tell they are still timed exposures, but the UFO's look a bit more believable. They are not as clear and bright. Some show signs of movement, while others do not. They also more closely resemble what I would imagine as early 50s photo tech. The picture I referred to looks a bit too modern to me, in addition to the other issues. The color is beautiful and deep... in the early 50s color was much less common and was, basically, still in it's infancy.

Heck...when the first network began broadcasting in color most programs were still black and white...not to mention that there were like all of 12 color tvs in service at the time. Seriously lol

I believe the most famous of the photos was proved to be real, but misrepresented. The UFO's were in fact lens flares from the Capitol lights.



www.blueblurrylines.com...

a reply to: draknoir2

i'm not sure but, if that were the case then wouldn't there be a "lens flare" for each light there and not only some of the lights?

And were the radar pings determined to be real? if so wouldn't that discount the lens flares?

curious...

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: draknoir2

i'm not sure but, if that were the case then wouldn't there be a "lens flare" for each light there and not only some of the lights?

And were the radar pings determined to be real? if so wouldn't that discount the lens flares?

curious...

The lens flare in the above photo is pretty clear. The odds of all those lights aligning with a common point of intersection are astronomical.

Don't know about the radar pings. Supposedly they weren't allowed to photograph the radar screen for security reasons, but I doubt they were radar returns from the internal reflections of that particular photographer's camera.

Is this thread being monitored at all ?
It appears to; have lots off topic posts and be off topic.

a reply to: draknoir2

Harry Barnes, a senior air-traffic controller at the airport, watched the objects on Nugent's radarscope. He later wrote:

We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed . . . their movements were completely radical compared to those of ordinary aircraft.[1]
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."[1]

At this point, other objects appeared in all sectors of the radarscope; when they moved over the White House


The objects were in fact on radar...