Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Breaking UFO News! - Stephenville, Texas Radar Report

page: 15
223
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by starcraft
 


Not only is it acceptable, it's a sign of a healthy mind.


People who cannot ever change their mind have no chance of growing and learning.




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 



Skin is made of carbon nanotube composite/metal. You will find a company in Texas that makes this material.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I just read the entire report and I must say.. WOW..

The witness testimony, in some cases direclty corresponds to radar data and could very well be what was seen by "Witness M" in the report.

It is pretty hilarious how the military treated the FOIA reports, especially with the numerous, scattered radars throughout the entire area.. If you remember from the original news story, a military official stated that there were no military aircraft flying around that time.. We later discovered they were lying, then they changed their story saying that some aircraft were in the area conducting traning sorties.. Yet another military track, which is probably an AWACS, is also within the same general area yet NO military aircraft react to the unknown objects even though in some cases they come within a mile of the F-16 formation in the radar graphs and have no activated tracking beacon...

In some cases, the unknown radar returns show an apparent acceleration to over 2,000 mph and then another sudden deceleration down to around 40 mph (this just isnt possible with any of our aircraft).

The military treated the FOIA requests as you would expect..But the interesting part here is that one of the most interesting unknown radar returns had no beacon activated, yet none of the aircraft responded to this aircraft. What if it was a hijacked airliner? It was, after all, traveling in a straight line directly towards Crawford Ranch. The military aircraft were clearly violating FAA flight regulations in this case flying in civilian airspace and, in some cases, very close to other civilian aircraft.

The size of the UFO that people saw from the ground was extremely huge.. And there has been no logical explanation produced by anyone for what has been seen by multiple witnesses in the Stephenville and surrounding area during this timeframe. Let alone what has been photographed and videotaped by eyewitnesses in this area of Texas around this timeframe..

Page 49 of the report was the most interesting to read (at least for me)..

I cannot copy and paste the text from the PDF file since it is locked.... So you will have to check out the PDF itself.. But it is extremely interesting. It is pretty ironic that the very same military denials and supposed inability to find any of the requested FOIA information about this event is actually some of the more questionable evidence..

Especially since the military officials that were asked for the FOIA documentation via the request could have simply responded in some fashion that would be clear and concise.. The military could have even stated that they didn't want the information released because of national security or whatever.. But ALL the agencies contacted for information via the FOIA requests responded the same way... "We found no documents responsive to your request"..

When we know via the other radar data that WAS submitted that there were MULTIPLE military aircraft flying in this area.

-ChriS


[edit on 18-7-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Here is some additional information about the released Stephenville radar data.
Some interesting thoughts in my opinion from Michael E. Salla, Ph.D of Exopolitics about why or for what reason it was possible that the radar data recently released by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) was in fact allowed to be released.


The release of the radar returns suggests a significant policy change by senior national security officials within the Bush administration has occurred. Rather than debunking UFO testimonies and withholding corroborating data, the FAA is now releasing key data that helps confirm these testimonies. A new policy of openness appears to be underway.



The testimony of former FAA chief Callahan wherein he revealed the role of national security officials in secretly directing FAA policy when it comes to UFO sightings, suggests they have approved the new openness policy. This may account for why major television programs such Larry King Live have been running an unprecedented series of programs on UFOs since the Stephenville sighting.



Importantly, the new openness policy may be related to a set of secret meetings at the United Nations from February 12-14 wherein a new policy of openness on UFOs was approved by member nations.



A more plausible explanation for the FAA's release of the radar data is that senior national security officials are signaling that the Stephenville UFO sighting was not part of any classified program, nor does it belong to any other national government. The FAA and more senior officials are directing the general public to contemplate a genuine enigma over the UFOs' origin. Consequently, it appears that the goal of the shift in FAA policy on UFOs is that a program to acclimate the American public to the reality of UFOs, and the possibility that they have something other than earthly origin is well underway. It can therefore be predicted that in the months ahead, more persuasive empirical data by the FAA and other government agencies will be allowed to emerge into the public arena increasingly pointing to the reality of UFOs and the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin.


exopolitics.org...


[edit on 19/7/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
First of all, thanks for this information.

Second, I have some thoughts on some of this stuff from exopolitics.com.


Originally posted by spacevisitor

The release of the radar returns suggests a significant policy change by senior national security officials within the Bush administration has occurred. Rather than debunking UFO testimonies and withholding corroborating data, the FAA is now releasing key data that helps confirm these testimonies. A new policy of openness appears to be underway.


But here is the problem.. The FAA did respond to the FOIA request by this particular MUFON investigator who was researching the stephenville sightings. But the military blatantly denied that they had any information whatsoever to respond with AT ALL.. Now, we know the FAA is a well-revered organisation which we see as the being the good guys now that they are cooperating with MUFON.. There have been multiple reports of UFO encounters by airline pilots, many of which are well documented and have alot of supporting evidence including radio transmissions and other evidence.. Some airline pilots have been grounded and/or completely terminated by their companies after coming public with their experiences when in some cases there is direct evidence to support their claims..

But the FAA has, at least in the past, been quick to have an opinion on what was responsible for these UFO sightings when, in fact, no formal investigation was ever conducted into what was seen or why.. "weird weather" used to be a common explanation for why pilots were seeing UFO's.. When the FAA actually is just spouting out their informal opinions when they have not done anything to look into these UFO encounters..

That's where MUFON comes in.. And I don't expect the FAA to investigate UFO sightings because that just isn't acceptable territory for a federal organisation such as the FAA anyway which always already has it's hands full.. HOWEVER, the FAA comes out sometimes with these insane explanations for what these people have seen when they, honestly, are just spouting out possibilities..

The FAA did seem very cooperative in this Stephenville MUFON investigation in responding to the FOIA requests promptly and with information to share (as the MUFON report states). But I don't put it past MUFON to spout disinformation either seeing it's track record..

Amen for MUFON...


Originally posted by spacevisitor

The testimony of former FAA chief Callahan wherein he revealed the role of national security officials in secretly directing FAA policy when it comes to UFO sightings, suggests they have approved the new openness policy. This may account for why major television programs such Larry King Live have been running an unprecedented series of programs on UFOs since the Stephenville sighting.


But is there actual physical documentation to verify that this new openness policy is even real?.. Has the FAA (a federal organisation) actually approved a new openness policy towards the the UFO phenomenon in general?? Even if so, that seems pretty odd..


Originally posted by spacevisitor

Importantly, the new openness policy may be related to a set of secret meetings at the United Nations from February 12-14 wherein a new policy of openness on UFOs was approved by member nations.


So the U.N. agreed on an openness policy for UFO's in a "secret meeting" ? Again, is there any documentation to verify this, and even if there is, how can we know it is legitimate and not a hoax. If this really was a secret meeting none of the members present are going to fess up to agreeing on this because of the heir of looniness it would cast on them and their governments in general. Therefore, even if documents surface which seem legit there really won't be any real way to verify it is indeed real if noone is going to admit any involvement with it. (which is, then, a perfect setup from a hoax standpoint because noone can know whether or not any of the documents are even real to begin with)


Originally posted by spacevisitor

A more plausible explanation for the FAA's release of the radar data is that senior national security officials are signaling that the Stephenville UFO sighting was not part of any classified program, nor does it belong to any other national government. The FAA and more senior officials are directing the general public to contemplate a genuine enigma over the UFOs' origin. Consequently, it appears that the goal of the shift in FAA policy on UFOs is that a program to acclimate the American public to the reality of UFOs, and the possibility that they have something other than earthly origin is well underway. It can therefore be predicted that in the months ahead, more persuasive empirical data by the FAA and other government agencies will be allowed to emerge into the public arena increasingly pointing to the reality of UFOs and the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin.


exopolitics.org...
[edit on 19/7/08 by spacevisitor]


But the FAA doesn't know all the classified programs involved in the Black Budget anyway.. I would guess that nearly no other federal institution would.. Especially seeing how even the ones who spill out the cash for the black budget don't even know where the money really goes to.. The thought that the FAA would have any knowledge whatsoever about military classified information and black-budget programs (in general) is preposterous IMO..

And, the FAA would not have any way to verify whether or not these unknown radar signatures were of international origin anyway.. The FAA radar data that was submitted to MUFON in response to the FOIA request involved unknown objects with no active transponder and no way to know what the aircraft were or what nation they belonged to (if any). Therefore, the FAA would be just as in the dark as anyone else on what these objects were, who they belonged to, or why they were there..

I'd like to truly and honestly believe that the government is coming forward with a new openness policy towards the UFO phenomenon, but I don't buy it. I'll believe that when i see the military cooperating with these investigations and providing whatever information they have. We know that the military lied outright when we were told no aircraft were flying that evening at that time.. When we know for certain that there were because of the friggin radar data that shows military aircraft. According to the MUFON report on the identity of the military tracks on radar, one of them is probably an AWACS (which I completely agree with) and the others were a formation of F-16's..

The military aircraft obviously violated FAA regulations which, then shows that the FAA data itself is incriminating to our own military in what they were doing.. They strayed from their courses so far that they were actually in civilian airspace (illegally) and actually came dangerously close to civilian aircraft flying out of DFW.. The military lied about aircraft being around, so why would any information be trusted even if they did respond to the FOIA request with valid information to submit to the request..

I'll believe a new openness policy when I actually start seeing the military cooperating. They claim they have no information from this evening when we know the FAA did.. If the FAA did, you would expect the military to have a wealth of data, especially given the military bases throughout the area which always have active radar stations.. Yet we are supposed to believe that the military response that all the data tapes were "written over" from EVERY single radar station and aircaft present in this area for some strange reason.. It is compete B.S. guys.. And then all the military responses to the FOIA requests all have the exact same stupid reply?

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
But the military blatantly denied that they had any information whatsoever to respond with AT ALL..


Hi BlasteR, thanks for your thoughts.

Here are some thoughts of me about it.

I think that these two reasons could be behind that continuing of blatantly lying and denying of the military even until today and if possible forever.

They don’t want give up that endless flow of money, the billions and the trillions of dollars they have used so far for there military and black projects and personal use in all those years.

They don’t want give up that highly “exotic” advanced technology [where under also definitely ET based] what’s far beyond the “normal” technology so to speak and where they are the only ones who can and are playing with.

And with “they” I mean this reality.


“There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, it’s own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”

- Senator Daniel K. Inouye


Source; Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document



Originally posted by BlasteR
There have been multiple reports of UFO encounters by airline pilots, many of which are well documented and have alot of supporting evidence including radio transmissions and other evidence.. Some airline pilots have been grounded and/or completely terminated by their companies after coming public with their experiences when in some cases there is direct evidence to support their claims..


Absolute right, and that happened also with veteran Captain Kenju Terauchi of the flight below.


JAL Flight 1628 Over Alaska
In November, 1986, a Japanese crew of a jumbo freighter aircraft witnessed three unidentified objects while flying over Alaska, USA. This sighting gained international attention when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that it was going to officially investigate this sighting because the Air Route Traffic Control Center in Anchorage, Alaska, had reported that the UFO had been detected on radar. Captain Terauchi was featured on numerous radio and TV programs and in People Magazine. Within a few months of these events he was grounded, apparently for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO, even though he was a senior captain with an excellent flying record. Several years later he was reinstated. The UFOs in this case were tracked on both ground and airborne radar, witnessed by experienced airline pilots, and confirmed by a FAA Division Chief.


www.ufoevidence.org...


Originally posted by BlasteR

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Importantly, the new openness policy may be related to a set of secret meetings at the United Nations from February 12-14 wherein a new policy of openness on UFOs was approved by member nations.


So the U.N. agreed on an openness policy for UFO's in a "secret meeting" ? Again, is there any documentation to verify this, and even if there is, how can we know it is legitimate and not a hoax.


There is some documentation but so far not official for obvious reasons, but my personal opinion is that it is not a hoax.


Lorant's testimony finally suggests that governments are being driven to a more open approach to the UFO phenomenon due to the recent increase sightings that are projected to continue well into 2009.


exopolitics.org...


Originally posted by BlasteR
I'd like to truly and honestly believe that the government is coming forward with a new openness policy towards the UFO phenomenon, but I don't buy it. I'll believe that when i see the military cooperating with these investigations and providing whatever information they have.


My expectation is that the government/governments will/must coming forward with a new openness policy towards the UFO phenomenon in the coming years/decades.

However, the military power as I described above whom has total control over that highly “exotic” advanced technology [where under also definitely ET based] would if possible deny it forever.
They sit on technology that really can save this world and change it forever in a far better place for all mankind, but again the question is, would they be willing to sacrifice all that power and wealth for those things?
But sometimes you must believe in miracles.



[edit on 21/7/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 21/7/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
i cannot believe that this is so quiet there should be much more chatter it just seems to me everyone went into denial lets talk about the awacs plane at 41000 ft it crossed over the ftwjrb at 4pm 2hrs before all the action it probably came out of tinker afb in okc i might be mistaken but i dont think so so that puts him over the field in an hourish time frame then mufon says he flew another hourish not too far from kileen marine base then i think they might have seen something and radioed back to ftwjrb and told them scramble something baby then the awacs plane headed back to ftwjrb because they were spooked and defenseless ftw spooled up and launched 4 at 6pm so i think the awacs was chattering pretty heavy all the way back so much so that it scared ftwjrb to launch 4 more f16s at 615pm come on baby read between the lines with me im a dfw line aircraft mechanic always outside for 15yrs i saw a low pass on 9/11 over the airport but it was just 1 f16 at about 2000ft it was awesome the memory still lingers with me today he was just securing our airspace i slept better than most that night and i thank the airforce for that warm fuzzy feeling i got but when you tell me that it took 8 f16s to escort the awacs plane im scratching my head on this one maybe they were just trying to use up some old jp5 not



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
This looks like a great report but it should be put through the same rigorous process as any report on ATS.

What I would especially like to see is see some corroboration of the analysis by other radar experts. There are discussion boards that have experts on doppler radar, perhaps we can crosspost over there for an independent analysis.

It seems pretty clear there was a massive airborne object in the sky at that time. It also seems clear that the airforce didn't seem worried about this, even though it was near Crawford Ranch. The possible presence of an AWACs plane in the area also suggests it may have been a secret test flight.
Is it possible that the airforce failed to pick up the radar signature but have a base and had many jets in the area aswell as the possible AWACS, almost impossible right. So they almost certainly knew of the presence of this craft.
If it had been detected as a bogey there would have been a massive response given the sensitive nature of that area.

It is not impossible this type of vehicle was built by military contractors. Due to it's massive size it could be filled with helium for buoyancy and use some type of quiet engine technology to generate thrust. The idea that is not 'one of ours' would be much stronger if we could confirm with a high degree of probability that it was capable of rapid thrust (500 km/hr back to 10km/hr in a period of 30secs or 2000km/hr as another part of the report suggested). These movements could also be due to radar shifting unfortunately.

I know there are witnesses who stated they saw the object moving rapidly in the sky around that time, but it's just not the same as getting hard fast electronic data on speed.

What I'm saying this excellent report needs to be peer reviewed by other radar experts to get a clearer picture. So far the only thing that points to it not being a secret stealth aircraft is the speed signature of the radar and one or two witnesses statements (witnesses statements on speed can be confusing).

Go to UFOCasebook.com to see a very interesting account of flying triangle sightings in the UK. In particular a witness with excellent background in optics and astronomy had a close encounter with one such object over his house.

ufocasebook.conforums.com...

This is an excellent firthad description of a Flying Triangle (mostly sighted in NATO countries such as US/Belgium/UK, coincidence?)

In this thread we also discuss possible physical makeup of such a craft,
it has been described a giant flying wedge of cheese





[edit on 25-7-2008 by ManInAsia]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ManInAsia]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Just to inform those who are still interested in the FAA Radar Data information on the Stephenville UFO sightings, again an interesting article on exopolitics.org;
It’s called.


Was the Secret Service Overruled in the Release of FAA Radar Data on the Stephenville UFO?


exopolitics.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Your link isn't working but that sounds VERY interesting. Thanks space visitor.

Here it is.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by anyone]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by anyone
Your link isn't working but that sounds VERY interesting. Thanks space visitor.

Here it is.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by anyone]


Thank you so much anyone,
and strrd, I made clearly some mistake.
I really appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
well if someone was being objective and trying to find out if these radar returns are normal or not you would expect them to sample data from another night.

at least thats what any serious researcher would do. how do they know these radar contacts have anything to do with the "lights in the sky" claims? how do they know radar data like this isnt an every day occurence? they basically showed nothing they even interpreted & presented it one way knowing full well other possiblities existed.

its not the sort of research that satisfies me in any way

[edit on 14-7-2008 by yeti101]


I have to second your opinion, it requires a control study of radar returns from other nights and also peer review by other radar experts to really nail down the only bit that is supposedly beyond our capabilities i.e. the rapid stop-start motion of a massive floating object.
After reading through the other posts it really looks like a LAV report, as I mentioned they have been almost exclusively seen in NATO countries near air force bases.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
For those who can open it of course, there is now a first part of a very interesting article on the site of Linda Moulton Howe available about this case.


Part 1: Why No Military Response to Radar Unknown
Headed to Bush Crawford Ranch on January 8, 2008?

Interviews:
Glen Schulze, Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer and Radar Specialist, Littleton, Colorado: “The first thing that drove me in that direction was Major Karl Lewis at the Carswell AFB installation saying within two days that they had no airplanes in the air. And I said, ‘Wait a minute! This sounds like Roswell all over again.


www.earthfiles.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Great find, Spacevisitor! I just love it when bs is called bs.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 


But even if we had peer-reviewed radar experts sifting through this and other radar data to come to some conclusion about these objects, would it really make a difference? These objects are all unknown radar tracks of objects with no transponder (or at least no transponder activated at the time). Therefore there is no reliable way to determine what these objects are, who they belong to, and why they are there (as I said in an earlier post).

This isn't really rocket science here.
The anomalous nature of the objects' movements, speed changes, etc.. proves that these objects are one of a few logical possibilties..

1-a direct result of an actual object displaying those characteristics (with technology far surpassing any we possess). In other words.. a UFO.

2-they are completely conventional, completely normal man-made aircaft and the oddities in this radar data are not even related to the movements of the aircraft but, rather, "glitches" in the data.

or

3-The unknown radar tracks are being caused by some kind of OTHER phenomenon, perhaps some kind of naturally caused phenomenon. (which we would never be able to know/verify anyway).

Even if some peer-reviewed team came in, analyzed all the data, and came to an educated conclusion based on that data, it is going to be a guess just depending on what is in the data itself.. There is NO logical way to accurately guess what an object is, why it is there, or who it belongs to just by watching it's movements alone.. And since the transponders of these objects were off (or non-existent) then no kind of speculation or guessing is going to conclusively prove what the objects are.. In other words, there isn't enough information to produce an answer with any level of certainty... FOR ANYONE.

HOWEVER, we still haven't seen all the pieces of the puzzle here..

The military radar data that was requested from all of these installations but supposedly doesn't exist (per the FOIA requests in the last few pages of the MUFON report) is important for a few reasons.. The military initially lied about their aircraft being in the area on the night in questin. WE KNOW that was a lie (the radar data from the FAA proves this lie). The military then responded in the FOIA requests that the data tapes had ALL been written over. But from ALL military facilities in this area and all aircraft in this area?? HIGHLY UNLIKELY (probably another lie).. And the fact that they weren't willing to release ANY information whatsoever in response to the MUFON FOIA requests in itself is compelling. Rather, they all released the same, dull, repetitive responses.. When they could have simply gave a valid explanation for while they were being so secretive.. Oh I don't know.. "It's a matter of national security and we aren't at liberty to release this information" for example..

Even if the radar data does confirm an object at that location, the trasnponder is off, therefore it is again going to show up as an unknown.. However, if the actual data of the objects (their speed changes for example) were to somehow be confirmed with this other outside military source, it would rule out some kind of natural phenomenon confusing the radar (at least in theory). So, if the military DID release radar data with similar objects and very closely gauged speed changes, etc.. It would be proof of an object actuallY being there performing those maneuvers in mid-flight (which isn't possible with our technology)..

Therefore perhaps the military refused to cooperate with the MUFON FOIA requests because they knew that if they DID cooperate, their radar data could be used against them in correlation with the alreading cooperating FAA (which did promptly reply to the FOIA requests) to conclusively prove that UFO's exist (with military evidence to support the idea)..

If they even had an AWACS in the area (which was concluded in the report but not officially known) then it is logical to assume that there is much more accurate radar information in the military's possession than what the FAA submitted (not just the AWACS data, but also the data from the MANY military-run radar stations surrounding this geographical area). Therefore, the military radar data would be much more conclusive and MUCH more revealing than what was submitted for the MUFON report.. A

And if the military really KNEW what it had in it's possession in the form of this data (which they probably did seeing as they even sent a formation of F-16's in to investigate along with the possible AWACS) Then it is also logical to assume that they would not be willing to cooperate based on what it implies. Which is, of coarse, that UFO's are real.

But, at least for now, all we have is what was submitted in response to the FOIA requests for the MUFON report, the eyewtiness testimony (which correlates with the radar data in some instances) and whatever evidence, photos, or videos the witnesses wanted to contribute to the report (which is actually alot). But there is probably MUCH MUCH more that we are not seeing here..

This is compelling..

-ChriS


[edit on 26-7-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Blaster, thanks for filling in a few pieces for me regarding military radar capabilities. You've done your homework on this also.
I too agree that the military must have known about that object since they had many jets and possibly an AWACs in the area and that area is near an air force base and Crawford ranch.

I still think it would be a very useful exercise to get more radar experts to comment/review this report, I just don't trust reports from one expert, experts can and often are WRONG. There is also the phenomenon of choosing the expert in the field that will give you the conclusion that you wan t (akin to the doctor for the insurance company and the doctor for car accident victim both coming up with two very different reports, both are experts chosen for their reliable conclusions supporting what you want to hear).

The available evidence indicates that the airforce is stonewalling on releasing their radar for this evening and that the airforce was not alarmed by this unknown aircraft in their vicinity (they did not seem to approach or chase the object) and that unusually there was probably an AWACs circling in the area at the time. This taken together would suggest this was a planned airforce exercise. most likely of some type of stealth aircraft.

Regarding the unusual speed and stop-start radar returns, we need more background from radar experts as to whether this is a common or very unusual event and we also need to know the frequency of radar returns of objects of this size. I can't get an idea of this from this report AT ALL, making the conclusions they reach in the report quite weak. In the interests of objectivity MUFON should invite a panel of experts to present a report (part2) to give background on this rather esoteric area. I'm going to check the video/links provided by the other posters for more background.

Finally we don't know that the military does not have the capabilities of the unknown aircraft identified in the report. Max. speed reported was 1900km/hr (according to one very fragmentary piece of evidence), they have jets that can do this speed, silently without sonic boom may be more difficult but we don't know. The 500km/hr and slowing to 10km/hr is certainly more in the realm of possibility without creating sonic boom and using some type of Vertical Take-Off Landing aircraft or Light Than Air Craft with a quiet thrust system built in.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ManInAsia
 


Thanks for your reply

Anytime I get involved in a thread like this it is always important to do the research and have some level of understanding to contribute above and beyond the norm.

I agree that there is a need for more objective opinions of radar experts but for any information like that to be made public, that would mean that these experts would suddenly have the looming heir of looniness over their heads that is commonly attributed to UFO phenomenon. Seeing as many many military and commerical pilots have been grounded and/or terminated proves that anyone involved in the aircraft industry who becomes involved in the UFO phenomenon in ANY way is going to be criticized, laughed at by their peers, and possibly even fired from their jobs... This isn't exactly a chance the average aircraft industry professional is willing to take...

Now, IMO the fact that these aircraft were sent illegally into civilian airspace proves that the military knew something odd was going on (probably from the radar data itself). But in the MUFON report it is apparent that, at one point, an F-16 came within one mile of one of these objects (if they really were physical objects and not glitches in the data). However, the aircaft made no deviation in it's flight path and, as the MUFON investigator sais in his report, doesn't appear to have seen this object. But that just means that either the pilot didn't see the object, or that the object wasn't there at all. But perhaps it was even a combination of the two..

NASA video cameras have, many times, recorded objects appearing and disappearing in the ultraviolet light spectrum in orbit. And some video evidence of UFO's from the ground suggests that these objects have the capability to, more or less, "cloak" in the form of masking the visible light they give off or reflect and thereby become invisible to human sight (while they can still be videotaped using infrared or ultraviolet cameras which record light outside the part of the spectrum reserved for visible light). Therefore perhaps the radar signature was of an actual object at the location but the object was not visible to the pilot. Another possiblity to ponder..

Some people have claimed that the U.S. government is taking a more open stance on the UFO phenomenon and that the UN, itself, has passed a new policy of openness towards UFO's in general. But how can that be true if the military is literally stonewalling any request for information from MUFON? That seems to be pretty counter-intuitive to a new policy of openness doesn't it? From what I've seen, there is no documentation or supporting evidence to prove that this "new openness policy" is anything other than possible disinformaiton or a complete hoax. And I don't expect UN officials to come forward anytime soon saying that they are involved with any kind of legislation such as this even if this new openness policy is real. Supposedly this occurred during a secret UN meeting.. But where is the proof? Everything points in the other direction..

We have even yet to see any explanation from the military why these 10 F-16's and an AWACS were illegally flying in civilian airspace.. Nor will we probably ever see such an explanation.. The military doesn't have to answer to anyone unless some kind of legal stipulation sais they have to.. And even then an FOIA request can be stonewalled and information denied to even exist. When this stance in itself is proof of some kind of government secrecy involving UFO's.. Why else would they not cooperate? The military commonly witholds information from the public for reasons of national security and they usually are willing to at least say this.. But, IMO, in this case the military's responses to the FOIA requests are nothing other than puzzling and suspicious themselves..

And sometimes we have even seen a presidential determination coming down from the president himself saying how the military doesn't have to cooperate with any legal inquiry due to reasons of national security.. See one exampleHERE from when service members were killed due to the illegal burn-off of stealth byproducts in pits at Area51..

One of the unknown radar tracks came extremely close to Crawford Ranch and although it may not seem that important, it is when you consider the fact that none of the civilian air traffic controllers didn't know what this aircraft was, who it belonged to, or why it was there.. Especially since the airspace around that area is restricted from what I remember being in the report. It could have been anything.. A UFO? A hijacked airplane? Even if it was just a lost cessna pilot this was an important event that required further inquiry.. If no other reason, just because of national security issues.. And the fact that military aircraft were in the area at all is proof that they had some kind of knowledge of what was going on.

But when you look at the actual submitted data in the report you see that these objects (if they were really UFO's) were displaying movements and behaviors which are far beyond what we currently possess.

Could these objects been some kind of secret military aircraft? Possibly.. But there are many points which seem to debunk this at least in theory of concept. First of all, why would the military be flying multiple high-value, highly-secret, experimental aircraft directly over populated areas. Second, why would they fly these aircraft over populated areas and then hover over these areas for any period of time for all to see? And how could the military possibly develop kilometers-wide flying object which can hover while making no sound whatsoever? Especially without anyone noticing that such a massive, Hugely economic-depleting project to build such an object was underway (wherever that would be)? Not to mention the hugely expensive government cost of constructing a facility that could house the thing.. What these people saw is currently not explainable and all the actual documented evidence in this case and the witness testimony all seem to correlate with each other and, in some cases, even the actual radar data itself..

Even these were secret military aircraft (which IMO doesn't seem logical) we have no idea what these objects were, therefore they are unidentified and, thus, classifiable as UFO's.. At least from our perspective.. And UFO's don't exactly have to be alien spacecraft to be called unidentified. I think this is a commonly-made major misconception.

This is one youtube video which shows a clip of one of the videos shot of one of these objects..



-ChriS

[edit on 28-7-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Just to inform.
For those interested, there is now a second part available about this important case on the site of Linda Moulton Howe.


Part 2: Why No Military Response to Radar Unknown
Headed to Bush Crawford Ranch on January 8, 2008?

© 2008 by Linda Moulton Howe

“I think the January 8, 2008, Carswell log book was blacked out
on the ten F-16s because the military wanted as little known as possible
about what their F-16s were doing that day.”
- Glen Schulze, Electrical Engineer and Radar Specialist


www.earthfiles.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Cool! Thanks for that


Gotta love Ms. Howe!

It's at least nice to know that we've been discussing and focusing on the more important aspects of the MUFON report. Because from what I read in the second report, we have exactly been on the right track.

One thing they didn't mention in the second report was how the F-16's that broke off were flying illegally in civilian airspace and dangerously close to DFW civilian aircraft transitting the airport.

And what is interesting about the AWACS discussion portion of this second report is that I said the exact same thing in at least one of my posts. Which is basicaly this (although my wording was a little different)..

From the link you just gave on earthfiles..


We found a possible AWAC that maintained an altitude of about 41,000 feet, which is higher than most of your civilian aircraft fly. It was there for the entire time of our radar data and it’s flying figure 8s over the area – going as far as north Texas to as far south as the northern Austin area. Those AWAC aircraft have the capability of seeing downward with radar for 250 miles.

Those type of aircraft are used whenever they are trying to control – they are like a flying headquarters basically.

YOUR IMPLICATION IS THAT IF IT’S A FLYING HEADQUARTERS, SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING IN THAT STEPHENVILLE AND CRAWFORD, TEXAS, THAT NEEDED TO BE OBSERVED DURING THAT PERIOD OF 4 PM TO 8 PM ON JANUARY 8, 2008?

What I can say is that if that were an AWAC, I would think they would have seen all objects in that area while they were in that (region of Texas) operating area on January 8, 2008.”


Which could have even originally been why the 2 F-16's broke off to begin with and exactly why the AWACS remained in this area for the duration of the F-16's passing through the area. Not to mention yet another possible reason why the military is not cooperating with the FOIA requests..

And what was said about the original lie by the military about the existence of air force F-16's on the night in question is exactly what I've been saying.. If they keep lying, how can you trust them at all? That in itself is suspicious.. And it's honestly hilarious how all of these puzzle pieces of lies and secrecy all form an image of a military that doesn't want to be caught with its pants down here... That was probably the whole reason they lied to begin with.. They thought this was going to go away with a lie.. But they were mistaken.

-ChriS

[edit on 30-7-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I haven't even bothered mentioning that the US military is lying because I assume it when they open their mouth, due to the nature of your country the military basically act with impunity. Lucky you have the FAA still under civilian control. I don't usually look at videos of UFO events because they are useless to look at most of the time and mostly fake, this one is interesting, I always pay more attention to the drawings and witness testimony. As I mentioned the type of object seen here is similar to others seen in Europe over the last 12 years or so. The technology for Lighter Than Air vehicles could well be behind this object. For me it's more puzzling as to the actual military application of such an object, since it's generally slow and massive so in theory would be easy to shoot down.





new topics

top topics



 
223
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join