It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Namur UFO Photographs - Belgium, June, 1955.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by karl 12

another great karl12 thread

This debunking site claims the case has been 'solved' as a 'toy sailboat on water reflecting sky'.

But I couldn't easily find further info.


posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Lowneck
another great karl12 thread

This debunking site claims the case has been 'solved' as a 'toy sailboat on water reflecting sky'.

That site has quite a few problems. I'm always willing to accept new facts, but his explanations are a little ridiculous in places. (See excerpts below.)

His discussion of the Trent photos, for example, is laughable. He ignores some of what the Condon scientists found, yet elsewhere (in other cases) he appears to blindly reference Condon Report explanations that have themselves been thoroughly undermined by further analyses by McDonald and/or Hynek.

Here's how that site ( claims to have 'solved' the Kenneth Arnold sightings:
"June 24, 1947; Mt. Rainier WA: A possibility that makes sense has now surfaced in this case. Some propeller driven predecessors to the RB-49 flying wing were being tested in that area at the time. They were boomerang-shaped, with vertical fins at the wingtips. There was a very short fuselage in the center, only slightly longer than the wing. Four pusher propellers provided thrust. The plane was the XB-35. One problem: There were only two built. But a plane might have been towing test dummies.

Arnold's distance and speed estimates don't jibe. Because of this, another theory says that the objects were geese.

It is also noteworthy how close Arnold's description came to the Horton HO-229 World War II jet fighter."

(What does the statement "Arnold's distance and speed estimates don't jibe" mean? Might that require further elaboration!?! Haha. It almost sounds as if this debunker is really saying: 'the objects Arnold described are either of conventional size and going too fast, or else they're of conventional speed but are then too big, so they don't match anything we might have built, and therefore Arnold's estimates must be off.' No? I could be reading too much into it, I admit. I'm jut so used to hearing that type of "logic" lately, I guess....)

And here's Rendlesham "explained":
"December 27, 1980; Rendalsham [sic] Forest, England: The strange events now seem to have a set of prosaic explanations:

We have to remember that this event happened just days before the end of the Iran Hostage Crisis.
The initial falling object was probably an unscheduled spy satellite film drop, getting quick info on Iran to US intelligence. This is what produced the damage.
Since the dropped body would have to have a heat shield, it should look similar to an Apollo capsule, but much smaller. That would explain the reported shape of the landed object.
The police, and the military team, who came to opposite sides of the forest, saw each other's lights (and the beam from a lighthouse) through the forest.
The military then came up with a wild story to cover up the film drop.
Objects sighted two days later were probably fire balloons. The description of the closest object matches a fire balloon with a firecracker "time bomb" included for a spectacular finish.
It is likely that Colonel Halt's report is intended to cover the satellite drop."

In general, it's a lot of typical debunking at that site. Of this type: 'It can't be anything unexplained, so it must be A. And if it's not A, then it must be B. If not B, then C....' (Arnold's sighting, after all, was of the XB-35... or if not that, then maybe geese... or if not geese, then the HO-229.)

And please note that I have no particular affection for those two cases. Much stronger cases exist. But they ARE two well-known cases, so referencing that site's "explanations" of them will allow the greatest number of people to see the poor quality of the debunking sometimes taking place there.

But I do intend to read through more of what's over there. Despite the obvious red-flags like above (found disturbingly quickly), there could be some good info in other parts.

edit on 9-5-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: formatting

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:38 PM
Chemtrails and UFOs just like I said time and time again.
Quite naturally these aircraft or better space craft cause they use space to go
utilize ordinary power plants. So regular trail condensation is what we see
sure enough. Not going in what we hardy suppose as the means of propulsion
we must stand flabbergasted. Unless we understand what space propulsion is
people give up and can't decide what has been presented to them. UFOs and
saucers are nothing new but thinking in the right direction seems pin head territory.

<< 1   >>

log in