The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

page: 4
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Thank you everyone for your kind words once again. I REALLY am GLAD by everyone's input here. I am equally glad that many have learned from this case and found it well presented


My ultimate goal, like many other great members here is to get this truth spread out in the world like a wildfire. The time has come for us to step up our game. I know I will, I know many others will, so I ask all the rest:Will you step up to the next level to bring this potentially 100,000 plus year cover up to the light of the free world? I pray so myself. This will not stop here with me, I am going to cover three cases from each decade to now over the next few months. One of my cases already got some minor press coverage (Mantell Incident), so I ask EVERYONE to do any and all they can to blow this mutha open.
So let us all get to it!
Since this thread is pretty much covered on all angles I welcome CIVIL off topic posts if they present LEGIT UFO pictures or cases that need further review. Internos already showed his master skill in the New York footage. Let us look at some more. We need all the best cases we can get!

 


ArMap: I will respond to you tomorrow, I have had a long flight today and am tired (so forgive typos), again, thanks for your kind words and I am glad to have you aboard my friend. Stand by.....



[edit on 6/24/2009 by jkrog08]




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by jkrog08
 


nowadays, something like this would be dismissed as chinese lanterns...I'm telling you people, we should pull together and ban chinese lanterns


somebody stabilize the video, please...stat!


I agree, chinese lanterns are the new "swamp gas" but it's good you put a smiley next to your comment, there are so many far out theories that people are serious about, it's often hard to tell whether someone is serious or joking without that clue!

Anyway great job on the original post and thread, you've set a standard so high for documentation it will be difficult for others to live up to it, but it would be admirable to strive for! This is the way to post UFO documentation! Excellent!



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by reugen
Looks a lot like the German Messershmitt "Komet" or Me-163 that was built and used at the end of the war, 1944-1945.


"Looks a lot like"?

To me it's an overstatement, but I guess it's subjective.

Taken from Wikipedia (on the history of Me-163):

"Five Me 163s were originally brought to the United States in 1945, receiving the Foreign Equipment numbers FE-495 and FE-500 to 503 ... On 12 April 1946, it was flown aboard a cargo aircraft to the U.S. Army Air Forces facility at Muroc dry lake in California for flight testing."

So there were only 5 of them, and they went to California, which is pretty far away from Utah.

If the Tremonton UFOs were some kind of experimental craft developed from it, how many of them would they build, and how many would they send up at once? One or two, or a whole fleet?

And were is the documentation of this craft?

And if these UFOs were experimental crafts with rocket engines, where are the chemtrails?

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Heliocentric]


You know that Germany had a lot of other experimental type of planes, there is much the public dont know even today. How much do you know about Operation Paperclip and what remains hidden even today ? What kind of material och prototypes were brought from Germany to the US after the war ?


In the final months of World War II, American troops discovered a top-secret facility in Germany with an advanced batwing-shaped jet fighter. If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?
Hitlers Stealth Fighter



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 


I take it your refering to the HORTEN hix as Hitlers stealth plane, i myself dont think there is much left from the war that we dont know about, through what the Russians americans and the British developed after, you can get a good idea as to where some of the ideas may have come from.so not many if any secrets from germany left imo.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Hello every one!! ive been viewing this site for quite some time now and have decided to join as i need some materials for my on going research. You ve done a great job !! , no doubt. Utah case have now more interest in it.! ! keep it up!



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by reugen You know that Germany had a lot of other experimental type of planes, there is much the public dont know even today. How much do you know about Operation Paperclip and what remains hidden even today ? What kind of material och prototypes were brought from Germany to the US after the war ?


There may have been secret testings of experimental craft, maybe in the Utah area, but I think you missed the point with my post.

The point is that debunkers and others that are trying to come up with 'reasonable' explanations for the UFO phenomenon must realize that they're just as obligated to motivate why their theories should be taken seriously as anyone who documents UFO sightings. Simply saying that "It could have been a secret craft of some sorts" simply isn't good enough.

If someone goes online and says "I saw a strange light in the sky, it must have been a Pleiadian Starship", then it is our duty to analyze the statement, put it in a context and evaluate whether the Pleiadian Starship theory is more likely than let's say an airplane or whatever theory. Equally, when someone tries to explain a UFO sighting/documentation as a Chinese latern, weather balloon or whatever, it is our duty to investigate whether there is any basis for it.

Now, jkrog08 did a good job documenting this incident as genuinely "unexplained", and I think that anyone that wants to punch a hole in it should do the same.

Have you come across any type of documentation that indicates that there were any type of experimental craft developed from the Me-163?

Have you come across any type of documentation that indicates that it was present in the Utah area, at the time of the incident?

Have you got any type of documentation that could support the theory of this hypothetic craft?

If so, that would lend credence to your theory.





[edit on 25-6-2009 by Heliocentric]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Azazeel7
 


Thanks for joining, what kind of materials do you need?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Wow, THAT is some really strange 'logic' there.


Originally posted by Myrmecobius[/i

reply to post by Norge
 


I'm made of "specific material". The guys at the observatory aren't likely to be materials scientists. Or qualified to comment on video adulteration techiniques. Think of it this way: when you're ill do you consult an astronomer? But let's assume they are right about the astronomy.
The straights of north-western Turkey are a migrating bird of prey motorway (sharing the top honours with Gibralter). Add in a bit of bio-luminesence along the leading edge and our perceptual habit of completing lines and you have the shape you see.
If the delta shape is real and not a visual artefact, well, it's most likely a kite with a bit of luminous paint. Not suggesting the guy faked it, simply filmed someone unknown flying their kite at night. If you fly a kite at night wouldn't you make it luminous in some way? Is that a nice kite-flying wind I can hear in the recording?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
someday that will be us, and we will merely be going to collect resources somewhere to bring back. Ah living between the times.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I have tried to stabilize the video as well as possible. Mayby not as well as possible as my edting tool (Vegas Pro 9) doesn't have motion tracking.

I didn't keyframe very single frame, more like every third frame. The task was also greatly complicated by dobbelt exposure on all frames involved in trembling hands or unstabil handheld thingythingy.

It is however possible to see that it is in all likelyhood soaring birds.

Anyone still calling it alien craft is hereby invited to come with a likely explanation for the movements of the objects.


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


You realize that the velocity tests, accel/decel tests, and speed tests rule out birds right? Also the self luminous issue is not resolved. The original tests done, which were far better than anything you or me could do with a film copy showed that they were not birds in all likelihood. The tests were spectroscopy, photogrammetric, densitometer. The movements do not match birds either, look at some of the objects moving, two of them are in a classic parallel aircraft formation (ie; wingmen), also the objects seem to be moving circular but 'drifting', while in the movements some objects make intelligent looking motions. I highly doubt these are birds, so did the USAF and US Navy, only the bunk CIA ran Robertson Panel said they were birds, and their explanation was nothing more than "they look like birds I have seen".



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
***snip***

If the Tremonton UFOs were some kind of experimental craft developed from it, how many of them would they build, and how many would they send up at once? One or two, or a whole fleet?

***snip***


And to elaborate on your questions,

WHY would the alleged craft be moving in this particular way? Where is the logic?

Where is the logic behind thinking that more than one or two experimental craft would be in the sky at any one time?

Why build 16 and fly them in an area open to the public when there are places like Groom Lake?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08

You realize that the velocity tests, accel/decel tests, and speed tests rule out birds right?


Only if the distance is judged correctly. Distance can be judged by comparison to nearby object or objects behind objects. Triangulation is another way.
Since there are no way to do this based on the video that particular argument in invalid.



Also the self luminous issue is not resolved.



The self luminosity is based on the film by people who didn't see the actual objects in real life. Strong sunlight on white birds can fool the film which by admission was stepped down to enhance details.



The original tests done, which were far better than anything you or me could do with a film copy showed that they were not birds in all likelihood.


Since the only way to do motion tracking in those days were to "dismantle" the film into separate frames and then make new copies with fixpoints present it would hardly be something they did. We also see that the only manipulation they actually do is move around in the frame while filming the film footage.



**snip***
The movements do not match birds either, look at some of the objects moving, two of them are in a classic parallel aircraft formation (ie; wingmen),


Don't be silly now. The movement DO match birds as seen every day by people living in ares where birds fly in thermals.
Seagulls fly like this to mention one species of bird.

"classical parrallel aircraft..." or two birds perhaps mates flying together.
You should investigate birds a bit before you dismiss them.



also the objects seem to be moving circular but 'drifting', while in the movements some objects make intelligent looking motions.


Birds are intelligent beings. Circular works fine for birds riding the thermals.



I highly doubt these are birds, so did the USAF and US Navy, only the bunk CIA ran Robertson Panel said they were birds, and their explanation was nothing more than "they look like birds I have seen".


They look like birds I have seen as well.


[edit on 27.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
A few clarifacations....

The "f" stands for the aperture size, and is not a 'filter' so to say. Also the focus is not related to the "f" number, it is the total amount of light the camera takes in by a larger or smaller aperture iris size. Also the term 'camcorder' was erroneous on my part and a mere generalization. Technically the apparatus used was a film camera, not a camcorder. Also the road Newhouse was on was US highway 30-south, I made a typo and stated 31-south, that was not the case. Just wanted to clear those up real quick!




reply to post by ArMaP
 


So you think they were birds? I have to disagree with you on this one my friend.


I think the velocity, speed, accel/decel calculations, even if the altitude was dropped to 5,000 feet still rule out birds. Also I think the overall shape of the objects rule out birds. Also, other tests were done, such as Spectroscopy, Photogrammetric, and Densitometer analysis. In addition to two independent government facilities using over 1,000 man hours of research. The entire reflectiveness of the objects, in combination with speed, direction change, and shape nearly rule out birds in any logic. As far as why Newhouse messed up on the focus and filters, well he did say he was shocked and had to get his camera out, load the film, and by then wanted to quickly film the quickly moving away objects. So I believe that due to his understandable shock and time limits before the objects went over the horizon simple mistakes were made, and of course he was better at filming from the air. Either way this does not point to birds IMHO. For me it is just the conclusions of the analysis point to it being very unlikely the objects were birds or anything natural. Like Dr. Condon said, the Panels conclusion was erroneous.



 


The USAF came to the conclusion that the objects were not birds and truly unknown, it was the CIA ran Robertson Panel that came to the bird conclusion in less than 12 hours of studying that case and 26 out of 2300 others Blue Book top cases. Even members of the Panel later said the goal was to debunk and not to analyze anything. Even Dr. Condon called their seagull theory erroneous.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


I have done my research and laid out everything in an unbiased order. I see no need for me to continue to debate this, as it is in my entire OP. The point is for people to decide for themselves what the objects were. And actually they did take the film and graph it frame by frame, that was in my OP as well, there was over 1,000 manhours involved in this analysis. Also there were no thermal currents that day as reported by the weather service to the USAF. That is in my OP as well.



I appreciate you trying to help analyze the film and I welcome any comments, but for you to say they are obviously birds is just as erroneous as what the Robertson Panel did, even the famous skeptic Dr. Condon did not agree with the conclusions.

Newhouse also stated the objects were metallic looking and silvery, with light reflecting off of them, you can see the glints of reflected light somewhat in the film. Also it was very unlikely for the objects to be self luminous in their angle if they were birds, also (again in my OP, I promise I covered everything) the feather transparency theory was covered by the USAF in a report (again in my OP).

So unless Newhouse was lying and the USAF and US Navy did not know how to analyze film (considering that the Navy analyzed it at Anacosta film school) I think the seagull theory is not acceptable. Birds are a common 'fleet' sighting, but they are also a far to common debunker explanation, especially when the flock of bird theory does not fit in any logical way.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I don't know if they were birds or not, I just think that the reasons presented to rule-out birds are not strong enough.

Where I live I see seagulls everyday, and the white ones are extremely reflective. Also, as I said before, not being completely opaque because of the feathers, the light passes through them and they sometimes look strange.

I haven't any photo of a seagull in those conditions, but here you can see a photo of a seagull at some 150 metres away, and with a exposure time of 1/400 seconds, but being very different we cannot really compare the images from this camera to the original film, it's just to illustrate somewhat what I mean.

(I tried to upload the full-resolution photo, but the useless media portal rejected it)

To make things worse for my comparison, the seagulls have dark grey wings, so no luck there.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
jkrog08, did you noticed the difference in the duration of the film in the different reports?

The USAF Official Analysis says, on page 412:


This is considered not probable because of the length of time they were viewed continuously on the film, approximately 90 seconds.


But the Photogrammetric Analysis says:


the film comprises about 1,200 frames

At 16 frames per second that means 75 seconds.

What we see from that film is just 45 seconds, so, not only is it possible that the film returned was not the whole film, maybe the Photogrammetric Analysis was made with a shorter version.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Very good catch ArMaP! Yes, it has been rumored that the entire film was not returned, but I did not put that in the OP because it was speculation, but now it is a little more substantiated.

I mean yea, they could very well be birds, but IMPO that is unlikely. I mean there really was not that much to support that alternate explanation from the research I saw from the USAF and Navy. So that is why it was pretty much limited in the OP. Although the documents I showed do say birds are possible, but again, in my humble opinion it would be a stretch and a half for that to be the case. But hey, that is why members that border on the more skeptical side, like you, are here! To present detailed alternate views.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
While I realize that we all have our different axes to grind I thought I'd pluck out some quotes about this film. Partly from OP and partly from the reports.



The relative angular velocity might be compatible with soaring bird speeds at distances of less than one mile, the angular velocity of the single object could be attributed to a bird within about one thousand feet.


That's also what I claim to be a distinct possibility.



The evicence remains rather contradictory…


Perhaps it is contradictory because some claims don't fit the apparant facts. "Distance" to name but one.



At these distances it is doubted if birds would give the appearence of round dots...


Well the word doubted means that they don't know. They are not bird experts. Or are they?



No specific conclusions as to sun reflection angles can be drawn since the line of motion of the objects cannot be confirmed.


They actually try to use pillow balloons and birds as possible object, but have to consider other things IF the premise of distance is correct.



This premise would permit highly reflective ballons or spheroids to be a possibility. However the velocity and accelleration computations rule this possibility out.




1000 feet - velocity of single object 27 mph


This is of course if the premise of distance is wrong.



5 miles - velocity of single object 670 mph


Soo much more likely isn't it? If we decide from the start that we are looking for alien craft.



The estimated velocity was anywhere between 378-3748 mph depending on actual distance of objects and compensation for shaky film. Most have settled on 665 mph for a mean speed. However that is still supersonic.


Again based on premise of distance. Which might be wrong.



Estimated distance from observer was 5 miles


How did he know if there were no reference point. Withou reference point you can only estimate distance if you know what the object is and what size it is.



Film was reprinted in 35mm by the USAF for better clarity and to avoid further degradation of the original


As it states in the official Air Force paper it was done because the original film was dry and brittle. Copying was done for perservation purposes.
The clarity bit was done by colour enhancement.

Be aware that the objects CANNOT be made clearer or get better resolution this way.



To prepare plots of the objects, a stop frame projector was rigidly mounted at a fixed distance from a finely-ground glass screen. *** This proved very satisfactory and provided a shadow free image upon which overlay plots could be made.


As I claimed in my post with the keyframing. THEY DID NOT KEYFRAME.
They plotted on a pice of glass. This method cannot enable you to view the film again with all the movements seen together live. Keyframing - or better still motion tracking - will let you see the actual movements and then one can recognize natural patterns as in soaring birds.



Size and luminosity varied throughout the film


This is important. If they were self luminous please explain - why the variatio?



The size is based on the assumption that the objects are five miles from the observer.


Again about the distance, but this is quoted from the Air Force report.
Can you say it out loud - ASSUMPTION.



The preliminary data uncovered were revealed to experts in the fields of astronomy and physics.


Why not from other fields? Ornothology comes to mind.



As to the results of the investigations being reported, no attempt was made to corroborate the opinions presented. Because of the lack of proper equipment, money and personnel, the investigation was limited. There are obvious tests which can be conducted to prove or disprove some of the findings prsented. It is suggested that these be undertaken.


Ah well.



There was no reference point in the sky so it was impossible for him to make any estimates as to size, speed, or distance


This is it guys. NO REFERENCE POINT. Hence no possibility of reliable estimation.

He did mention that the size was that af bomber plane at 10,000 feet. That is not an estimate of size. That is a description of the apparant size seen from where he was. My thumb is the size of the moon if I hold my hand out at arms length.



Another strong possibility is that the objects were sea gulls soaring thermal air current. Movies of sea gulls taken under similar lighting conditions showed the sea gulls appearing as bright spots of light very similar to those in the movies. At the present time the Air Force contemplates no future action will be taken to identify the objects.


WOW!

How come this wasn't mentioned in the synopsis?

Is it possible that it didn't fit the purpose of the exersize?



EDIT:

I nearly forgot.
Compairing a freeze frame of the film with a foto of Snow Gees in v-formation is nothing but a poor attempt at manipulation.
Shame on OP for that one.


[edit on 28.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


I do not know what your problem is, I have seen you aggressively trying to debunk other UFO threads so I guess it is expected. There is no need for your scoffing, ridicule, and bashing of my thread. I have welcomed you and everyone to CIVILY discuss these matters, preferably with an open mind that isn't already made up one way or the other. I have politely answered your questions and everything is covered in my OP. I never forced anyone to believe anything, nor did I say the objects were for sure alien spacecraft. I gave my opinion, but as far as official conclusions go I said what I always do; "It is up to you the reader to decide what these objects were". I never once called the objects "craft" or "spaceships", so obviously you either did not read the OP or are using pseudoskeptical fallacies and disinformation in an attempt to debunk the case. I was not leading anything or inflating anything, the average speed came from the USAF and Navy reports themselves, it is not something I made up. Actually the speed of the objects had to be over way above a birds speed unless the objects were filmed from a few hundred feet up, which is obviously not the case, there isn't any refuting that these objects, whatever they were, were at least over 1,000 feet high and more than a mile away, you can tell that at least just by watching the film. Newhouse was also a seasoned Naval Film Officer, so he was pretty good at judging distances. You stating that my intent was to lead people that the objects were alien craft because I said the mean speed was 665 mph is ignorant, ambiguous, and erroneous-and quite frankly rather obnoxious. It seems to me that you either A), do not know how to properly discuss cases in a civil manner, or B), do not like what the facts of the case point to so you are mad at me for presenting them and thus trying to attack them. I really do not care which it is, or if it's any, that is just a quick observation. The facts are what they are, and actually that estimate was a more conservative one than it could have been. Regardless of what you say about "they didn't test this", "they didn't do that", "the technology was poor at the time", the fact is they did do many tests and utilized many top institutions and man hours. It is so easy to now, after the fact ridicule the tests right? Yes I understand there was no reference point and thus there was no clear way to tell how far the objects were, BUT even without that the estimates on speed, accel/decel/ velocity, luminosity, etc could still be made. As usual with most skeptics(mainly pseudoskeptics) however you are completely disregarding Newhouse's, a 21 year Navy film vet, eyewitness testimony on what he, his wife, and two children saw. You seem to maintain that he was wrong, and that there is no way the objects were at 10,000 feet (simply because apparently you just think it can not be, likely because you know what that means if they were at around 10,000 feet) when what you maintain is true is in direct contradiction to the evidence (like the CIA ran Robertson Panel).


This film could not be duplicated under simulated conditions.
The objects appear to be a light source rather than reflected light.
All the objects appear to be the same size and circular in shape.
At a distance of five miles, with the movement perpendicular to the line of sight, the average velocity is 653.5 mph. Likewise, at 2.5 miles the average speed is 326.75 mph.
The movement in flight appears to follow an elliptical or circular pattern, within the group.
While the objects are unidentified, the following possibilities have been eliminated:
Balloons
Aircraft
Birds
The image structure & maneuvers eliminates any type of aircraft.
Microscopic examinations show that the objects are in focus and 1/6th to 1/10 the size of the full moon with the naked eye.
Photogrammetric experiments have shown that the images cannot be associated with any type of bird observation at any distance.

www.ufologie.net...

They were NOT birds in any likelihood....


Because the analysts noted the complete absence of any evidence to indicate birds, such as fluttering, birds were the first and easiest discarded explanation. There was almost a complete consensus that birds could not be the explanation; it was so untenable that the analysis concentrated on reasonable other possible causes such as balloon or aircraft.
It was the opinion of the P.I.L. representatives that the objects sighted were not birds, balloons or aircraft, were "not reflections because there was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees of arc" and were, therefore, "self-luminous." Plots of motion and variation in light intensity of the objects were displayed.
It should be emphasized that neither of the two analysis remotely

www.ufologie.net...




Can you say it out loud - ASSUMPTION.

LOL, that is funny because you are the only one making assumptions without proper research. Aside from that your snide remark was extremely immature and troll-like.



Why not from other fields? Ornothology comes to mind.

You must not do much research or reading of the original article before trying to debunk well researched and presented threads. Actually an Ornithologist was consulted and did not think the objects were birds, although the possibility could not be ruled out. Again, the Panel that you are talking about was the one that "debunked" the film, so maybe you should ask them why they didn't have one but the USAF did consult one. And no I am not going to dig back through the multitudes of Blue Book files to find it for you, you can do that yourself.



This is important. If they were self luminous please explain - why the variatio?


LOL, again apparently you did not bother to read my OP or any of the links provided. The changes could have occurred by the movement through arc of the objects, the size was thought to change because of the quick velocity of the unknown objects, which would drop altitude rapidly and then ascend rapidly, which was past what birds can do, thus the reason for the speed estimates you like to bash and say do not hold up. Well actually they do and that proves that the objects were traveling at high speeds The effect is also because (in the majority opinion of the USAF) the objects were light sources that were moving.


Soo much more likely isn't it? If we decide from the start that we are looking for alien craft.


That couldn't be further from the truth, and you have showed once again that either you did not read the OP (likely) or for whatever reason you did not comprehend what you read in a clear manner. I didn't say that, the USAF and Navy said that after running tests, and I HIGHLY DOUBT THEY WERE TRYING TO LEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELEIVING NEWHOUSE SAW A FLEET OF ALIEN SPACECRAFT! So maybe you didn't realize that whole passage of information was an image of an official USAF document courtesy of bluebookarchives.org and not something I made up to exaggerate and mislead the people of this community and the world.


As I claimed in my post with the keyframing. THEY DID NOT KEYFRAME.
They plotted on a pice of glass. This method cannot enable you to view the film again with all the movements seen together live. Keyframing - or better still motion tracking - will let you see the actual movements and then one can recognize natural patterns as in soaring birds.

Well as I stated in my OP, it is impossible to run new tests because the Pentagon will not release the original film, and even if they did it is probably so degraded that it would be impossible to run new tests. The USAF and private researchers were willing to run more tests on the film, especially another densitometer test (after Dr. Donald Menzel said he thought the first densitometer was done wrong) but the Pentagon would not release the film and the Robertson Panel did not want to run any more tests on the film, even though they were the ones who stated a new one needed to be done. So obviously they knew it would not make a difference or they did not care anyways since it is publically known their only goal was to debunk the UFO phenomena and disregard any legitimate evidence.


WOW!

How come this wasn't mentioned in the synopsis?

Is it possible that it didn't fit the purpose of the exersize?


Because the synopsis is just an introduction, why would I go into the entirety of the thread in detail in it? You are pulling irrelevant stuff out to try and give yourself credence and debunk and bash my thread, I do not know if it is personal or what. Exercise? What is the purpose of your professional looking debunking attempt and ridicule and scoffing????? I only try to present evidence in the most neutral manner and you accuse me of pushing a falsely presented case on people? Is it possible that there is no debunking to be done on this thread because everything was covered, so you must resort to scoffing and ridicule in a feeble attempt to debunk a solid case?

Another thing, since you liked to quote that, which obviously biasedly strengthened you point, why didn't you quote the weather documentation from any of my sources that stated there were likely no thermals that day?? Last paragraph...



Continued Next Page....



[edit on 6/28/2009 by jkrog08]





new topics
top topics
 
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join