Amazing UFO Photographs By Pilots! Incontrovertible evidence? , page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 89 times

reply posted on 14-2-2008 @ 08:17 PM by TheDecider

we made the ufos, we fly the ufos, and we have been for more than 60 years.
i cant figure out why nobody wants to pony up and make this knowledge as common as media-friendly "are ufos real".

if we all get on the same page here and research where the gov and international gov tech is actually at, and spend time opening the flood gates, we could make real progress and expose the anti-grav saucers for what they are. an evolving technology that we either created, or reverse-engineered.

otherwise, we wouldnt have seen an obvious refining in saucer technology since the 50's. its quite obvious that our original designs were quite antique, compared to more recent sightings. dont you think if aliens were flying these things, they wouldnt have had such a huge jump in technology in 40 years? they would have already figured that *** out a longggg time ago.

reply posted on 14-2-2008 @ 09:47 PM by mikesingh

reply to post by sparkofdivine

That was pretty interesting! I wish your father had kept some copies of those UFO photographs he had taken. Has he any?

reply posted on 14-2-2008 @ 10:12 PM by mikesingh

Originally posted by commodore64
reply to post by mikesingh

Sorry to dissapoint you guys but Mexican Pilot Video is debunked already.
See: www.alcione.org...

Thanks commodore! But that was one side of the story. No one till today has answered the question as to how the UFOs are seen flying THROUGH the clouds sometimes and not always BEHIND them like if they were oil rigs!

And considering that the crew was a very experienced one, patrolling over the same area for months, isn't it odd that they couldn't distinguish between oil rigs and UFOs? Were they all drunk?

And how come the oil rigs could not be seen with the naked eye? This vid was taken by a Forward Looking Infra Red video camera.

Cheers!

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 02:20 AM by plopunisher

Originally posted by TheDecider
we made the ufos, we fly the ufos, and we have been for more than 60 years.
i cant figure out why nobody wants to pony up and make this knowledge as common as media-friendly "are ufos real".

Thats what I've always believed as well. It's obivous that most of the sightings of UFO's are average people seeing some classifed projects being tested. It's not far fetched that the average person could see things that they could not place in this world if they were ever to see classifed projects.

I DO believe that Earth has been and is being visited by beings from another world. They are probably the source of most technology in recent history. I just do not believe that they would allow themselves to be seen to people they did not want seeing them. Aliens presumably would be smarter than us since they travel through space and I would assume they would contact those in power and not the average person if they were to contact Earth

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 04:20 AM by internos

reply to post by mikesingh

VOICE A: I'll tell you right away.

VOICE B: A position?

VOICE C: A position. 7 - 4.

VOICE A: At 12 of our position, I still have it there.

VOICE D: A traffic.

VOICE E: Can you get me the headquarters officer, Captain Danzon to let him know that we are reading a target.

VOICE A: Point Carmen 18 - 4.

VOICE B: It's marking 2-106 of speed and has a heading of 301.

and

VOICE C: Its correct, it's now at our 7 o'clock position at 10.5 miles distance.

VOICE C: It's course is, 2- 8- 3 with a speed of 3-3-4.

and

VOICE D: I don't have it on the screen but the Radar is still marking the distance at 37 miles.

and

VOICE B: At 7 at the same altitude.

So we have to assume that a trained crew was unable to distinguish neither a ground object from a flying one, nor a static object from a moving one, giving even variable speed and heading (were they dreaming or what?): now this is interesting. I'm not impressed by a mile long page which content is 99% UNRELATED to the sighting (they just extracted the part of the video that they tought were useful in order to back up their THEORY: and by the way, why that guy still hasn't explained the radar tracking? Will he find ANOTHER explanation to it? And how does it comes that the object are some times visible at the nerest side of the clouds?

Arguments against oil well fires:

There are no flickering/changing shapes of the lights
The objects appeared in front of clouds and could not be distant
The FLIR did not have the range to see the oil well fires
The camera was not pointing in the right direction
The angle of elevation was too high for oil well fires

With regard to the flickering/shape comment, this seems obvious. Captain Franz's maps indicate that the oil wells were roughly 100 miles distant. At this distance, a flame 25 feet across would only subtend an angle of about 10 seconds of arc across (0.003 degrees). Add to this that the camera had to look through 100 miles of atmosphere and it seems unlikely that the FLIR could resolve such a target. Close examination of the video shows that there does appear to be a change in intensity on several of the targets indicating a "flickering" one might expect from a fire. This argument appears to be without merit.

UFOs Or Simply Oil Well Flames? - Bruce Maccabee replies to Alejandro Franz

Outrageous?

Maybe..... maybe not.

I should think that the FLIR operator would be aware of the oil
fires having flown around the area many times before (I assume
this wasn't his first experience operating the flir in that
area.)

If one looks at the URL:

www.alcione.org...

one sees superimposed upon a map a frame of the video showing
the lights I have caller "the twins" and the azimuth -133.7.
Also shown, but not mentioned by Fran, is the elevation, EL =
3, which implies a sighting line tilted upward.

Looking at the whole video one sees that the "twins" and
other lights are above at least the lower cloud level.

However, the most convincing visual evidence that the objects
are not at ground level appears in the video around 17:06:43-45
at which time the lights/object emerge from a cloud and, behind
them is a dark area (cloud shaded from the sun). After they, one
after another, pass the dark cloud they also pass in front of a
bright cloud (lit by the sun).

This proves that they were at cloud level and not on the ground.

See also:
/3bjx5l
www.rense.com...

Mexico's FLIR Representative Talks About Air Force Images

Santiago Yturria Statement On Mexican UFO Case

The complete analysis by Bruce Maccabee,
"A STUDY OF THE MARCH 5, 2004 RADAR AND FLIR SIGHTINGS DURING A SURVEILLANCE FLIGHT BY THE MEXICAN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(62 pages)
can be downloaded here:
brumac.8k.com...

Ah, BTW: the original, unedited MPEG file of the Mexico video can be downloaded H E R E
courtesy:
UFO Casebook
Mike, not only the question about the clouds is unanswered: NO ONE so far provided EVIDENCES that those were ground targets, despite it should be very easy to do: the first radar target IS still unexplained because it had a rather large radar cross-section and was traveling at high speed, so what?

Just a reminder: before this attempt of debunking, they tried to dismiss these ufos as:

Meteors______

Ball Lightning__

Gas__________

Balloons______

So what's next?

[edit on 15/2/2008 by internos]

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 04:42 PM by BlasteR

If I remember correctly, the national geographic channel did an episode of "Is It Real?" about UFO's and this piece of video was analyzed in that episode. Some people claimed that the heat signatures were not UFO's but actually flames from a refinery off in the ocean. If you look closely at some points i think I remember actually seeing reflections of these light sources off the water? It's been a while. It would explain why they seem to be following the plane at least..

-ChriS

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 05:37 PM by ZeroGhost

One thing that bothered me about this Mexican Air Force case, was that they never went up and duplicated the effect or showed that it could not be seen from that position.

The diagrams are all fairly impressive and the many different points to prove what you would think would be a simple thing in going up again seemed overkill.

I imagine, it would be expensive to duplicate the flight verbatim from flight record, and the cost of using the FLIR, but it would either show it was the oil rigs, or show it could not be explained. The radar was interesting too. but without the science which demands "duplicating the experiment to prove it". It is still theory.

I was thinking of using Google Earth or NASA's World Wind to set points and overlay this guys diagrams, but I have fires to put out here, and love of the subject don't pay the bills. It can all be done by anyone however. Send us any screen shots!

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 06:40 PM by RUFFREADY

Very interesting thread !
I have been searching for the famous photo I remember first being shown (I believe , in a ufo book or mag in the 60's) of a military (bomber?) and in the not to distant back ground toward the tail of said photo following discretly, was a classic flying saucer> As I remember in the article, the photo was analized throughly and passed all test. (as I remember I think it was a promotional picture of new airforce bomber or transport type plane, the air force was showing off..and the flying saucer was off to the rear in the distance and a blow-up in the article of the UFO showed the thing to be a classic UFO (as I said above) remember that??

anyway, here is a site I found taht's interesting with stuff related to thread.

source for link I'm posting is : The UFO Iconoclast(s)

link+ ufocon.blogspot.com...

[edit on 15-2-2008 by RUFFREADY]

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 07:28 PM by el cid

reply to post by internos

i could have SWORN i've seen that viseo before on the web...maybe it was a similar vid.

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 07:32 PM by Doc7even

reply to post by mikesingh

I want to Thank you also.
Very Interesting Topic.
I'm sure there's a lot more... Just need to the right people to help.
And this is a Good Place for that!

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 09:46 PM by sparkofdivine

MikeSingh,

sorry for the late reply; I was visiting other forums.

I believe that my father had used a typical 1970's camera, nothing high tech, and had the associated negatives in his possession with the original picture.

I recall that he had also given away the negatives as well, because he was a Lt Col at the time, and had no reason to believe that his own government would "steal his stuff."

The negatives and developed pic were never returned.

I asked him what the picture looked like, but he never wanted to discuss it. My mother told me it was a UFO, not a reflection, not a flash of light, but a solid-looking classically shaped (saucer) UFO.

I really wish he would discuss it...but after 30 years it seems unlikely.

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 09:47 PM by RUFFREADY

I finally found that picture I mentioned in my previous post. take a look-see

www.ufoevidence.org...

this photo was the first to pop into my mind when this thread started
really cool and natural I thought when I first saw it.

source=ufo evidence.org

[edit on 15-2-2008 by RUFFREADY]

[edit on 15-2-2008 by RUFFREADY]

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 09:51 PM by mikesingh

Originally posted by internos
Mike, not only the question about the clouds is unanswered: NO ONE so far provided EVIDENCES that those were ground targets, despite it should be very easy to do: the first radar target IS still unexplained because it had a rather large radar cross-section and was traveling at high speed, so what?

Yeah internos, that's what I've been saying all along. We have so called 'experts' who try their darnedest to debunk anything and everything with some outlandish arguments. But unfortunately, the majority of fence sitters tend to believe what these 'experts' spew out without analyzing it themselves.

Just a reminder: before this attempt of debunking, they tried to dismiss these ufos as:
Meteors______
Ball Lightning__
Gas__________
Balloons______

So what's next?

Hey! You forgot our popular whipping boy - Venus_________

Cheers!

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 09:58 PM by Stale Cracker

Pics 1 and 3 got me....

Good to see you still hard at work Mike

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 10:05 PM by mikesingh

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
I finally found that picture I mentioned in my previous post. take a look-see

www.ufoevidence.org...

this photo was the first to pop into my mind when this thread started
really cool and natural I thought when I first saw it.
source=ufo evidence.org

Wow! Thanks RUFFREADY! I haven't seen this pic before. This is a pretty good one.

Keep 'em comin'!!

Cheers!

reply posted on 15-2-2008 @ 10:32 PM by tgambill

they are Nephilim.....they are returning. they are inner dimensional and not what people think. Long story short.

reply to post by Karlhungis

reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 07:07 AM by mikesingh

Senior Air Force Officer Confirms UFO In Our Skies!

I was discussing this thread with my neighbor, a retired Air Vice Marshal, who is a highly decorated fighter pilot, whether he has had any encounters with UFOs during his long career.

He wasn’t very forthcoming initially, but then came out with an incident in which he was head of an investigation committee to enquire into a sighting by one of his pilots, a squadron leader, posted in his fighter wing.

He along with his wingman, took off at around 0530h on a practice sortie. At about 30,000 feet the pilot radioed a bogie, an egg-shaped metallic object, at 2 O’clock, approx 40,000 feet high and stationary at an apparent distance of 10 miles. At that distance it was as big as an egg at arms length.

He radioed for instructions and was asked to investigate by base ops as this was not visible on radar screens. Both aircraft turned and made a steep climb toward the object. As the aircraft were closing in, there was a blinding flash from the object after which it retreated at such tremendous speed that it vanished within 3 seconds flat!!

The investigation concluded it was an unknown object of unknown origin. Where is the investigation report, the video etc? It was all hushed up and no one was allowed to talk about the incident!!

Now all this from the horse’s mouth! The man who was not only involved in the investigation, but was heading the committee!

Cheers!

[edit on 16-2-2008 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 07:25 AM by internos

reply to post by mikesingh

Astronaut Gordon Cooper Witnesses UFO Landing at Edwards AFB

"I had a camera crew filming the installation when they spotted a saucer. They filmed it as it flew overhead, then hovered, extended three legs as landing gear, and slowly came down to land on a dry lake bed! It was a classic saucer, shiny silver and smooth, about 30 feet across. It was pretty clear it was an alien craft."

Source: Ufo evidence / Read more here

...over the next fifty years, the base would be visited again and again by UFOs, including in 1952, 1954, 1958, 1965, 1967, 1978, 1995, 1998 and more. Several of these sightings were made by extremely reputable witnesses, including Air Force base officers and on one occasion, astronaut Gordon Cooper. In 1958, Cooper was at the base when a UFO landed on the dry lakebed. Base personnel filmed the incident, and Cooper developed and viewed the film. As he says, “Good close-up shots. Nothing like I had ever seen…double inverted saucer shape. It didn’t have any wings on it or anything…There was no doubt in my mind that it was made someplace other than Earth.”

Source: Pacbell / Read more here

img255.imageshack.us...

Project 1947 - Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957

[edit on 16/2/2008 by internos]

reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 07:44 AM by mikesingh

reply to post by internos

Check this one out too! MiG pilots chasing a cylindrical UFO which speeds up to about Mach 3 within a few seconds! (Embedding vid disabled by request).

www.youtube.com...

And here's another one. A UFO caught on KGB film from MIG filming an F-16.

YouTube Link

Cheers!

[edit on 16-2-2008 by mikesingh]

reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 08:04 AM by internos

reply to post by mikesingh

Mike, there's a controversial about the MIG chase video (i say it before someone else does

From: Kerry Ferrand
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:43:14 -0400
Subject: Re: KGB Files Show

Ok the show itself hasn't screened here yet (But Im sure it
eventually will) so I cant comment on that but just looking
at those promo images I can find some big problems:

The Image with the caption

"A UFO encountered by a Russian MIG during military
maneuvers."

clearly shows an American McDonald Douglas F-15A or
C Eagle in flight not a MiG (unless the F-15 *was* the
UFO:-)

The pic with

"This image depicts an elusive, cylinder-shaped object
which was chased for several minutes by a Russian MIG"

Shows the rear top section of a US made ejection seat,
the ACESII which can be found in the F-16, F-16 and A-10
(and a few other aircraft which wouldn't give that
type of view)
One of the seat's unique environmental sensor pitot
tubes is prominent in the photo. The footage is
from no MiG

Source:
Virtually strange

But, most important:

Originally posted by David Rudiak on Updates

When Stan Friedman visited the S.F. Bay Area a few years back,
Reuben Uriate, Northern California MUFON director, demonstrated
for us that many portions of your referenced "documentary" were
flagrantly hoaxed.

This program was shown on the TNT network and was supposed to
show, among other things, films of Russian jet interceptors
encounters with UFOs.

What they _really_ did was take a previous TNT documentary on
_American_ fighter planes and then used computer graphics to
insert the supposed-UFOs.

He showed the clips from the original documentary followed
immediately by the "UFO" clips. No doubt about it. The UFOs were
computer generated and they hoped the average viewer wouldn't
know a Russian MIG from a U.S. fighter.