reply to post by LiveForever8
You deserve a small, humble help from me too mate
I dont have the relevant knowledge of photography or the editing process and was hoping you guys and gals could give me some intelligent evidence i
could introduce to him to show how these old dated UFO images are the best evidence we have.
Maybe this happens because they are NOT.
In my humble opinion, it's very important how do you pose questions to yourself, and how do you reply to them: you must to be the first debunker if
you want to be taken seriously: that compilation includes everything: unexplained cases and explained ones (hoaxes, misinterpretations, glitches,
natural phenomena, scratches, reflections, etc).
If you 'd prove to them that you are very careful whenever you look at some evidence, then you would automatically get credit. But don't try to show
to them a mix of pictures of most of which you don't know the origin, it WON'T help you, because it's NOT a matter of amount of evidences: on the
contrary, the very majority of evidences related to UFOs is a bunch of crocks: if by disgrace they would find out that at least one of them is fake,
then your whole point would become very hard to support: so my very friendly advice is: focus on the GOOD UFO cases, and ask to them to provide you
with some good explanation about them: a picture by itslef will ever prove NOTHING
I would start here:
[ start of case ]
Flying Triangle, Belgium UFO wave, Petit-Rechain, april 1990
Mass sightings, multiple witnesses, media coverage, military jets that chased UFOs, UFOs spotted by radars making manoeuvres impossible for the
(known) terrestrial aircraft, at impossible (for us) speed/accelerations and so on.
1) Object witnessed at Eupen, Wavre, Leige and Brussels
2) Reported in over 2,600 statements to police
3) Photographed by many people on both Video and Camera
4) Detected and Confirmed by radar stations on the ground
5) Detected, Confirmed and photographed on aircraft radar screens
6) Pursued for over an hour by two F-16s.
Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and
passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and
Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at
Eupen four months earlier.
Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar
confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these
parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"
As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000
meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing
way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.
Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate
and violent evasive action.
This is what has been disclosed by the military, it wasn't a single witness
making wild claimings
Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of
1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening -
a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of
any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were
described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two
F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic
course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.
Colonel De Brouwer added "Immediatley after the operation, the pilots said they had never seen anything like it. Certainly the flight pattern and
echo on their screens was in no way that of a conventional aircraft"
The Belgian Minister of Defence in the Belgian parliament stated that "The
Government did not know what they were".
I think that the explanation (as said based on ZERO evidences) that it was a military craft does not make sense, especially if we look at the data:
Colonel W. De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force, with the radar videos of one of the F-16s at the press conference of July 11th
Blow-up of the image on the bottom screen above.
The 990K is the speed of the object in knots.
990K = 1830 kilometers per hour = 1.5 Mach.
Clearly, some radical manuvers are occurring:
Speed changes of up to 410 knots in one second.
Heading changes of up to 70 degrees in one second.
Altitude changes of up to 3000 feet per second (1,777 knots) maintained for one second or less and typical ascent / descent rates of 1000 feet per
second (592 knots).
That these manuvers are radical can be seen by comparing them to some
representative figures for commonly available fighter aircraft. For instance, the F-4 Phantom is known be able to turn at only 11.5 degrees per
second, less than 1/6 as fast as the observed UFO profile.
The nature of these manuvers and their coincidence in time is also visible in this graph, which only shows the value of the changes:
Text file of the radar contacts of one of the F-16s
Sources, more infos and references:
Original article related to the pics (recovered)
[ end of case ]
Try to start some discussion about this case (which is an example) and try to find out whether they are open minded enough to distinguish what can't
be explained according to general knowledge from what can be dismissed by just screaming "CGI". Basically, ask to them to debunk this case: i would
be very interested in their explanation.
If they'll try to drive the discussion to physical evidences, then we'll talk about the
Height 611 UFO crash
. No need to hurry, plenty of very good cases out there