You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 23
212
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Brighter, I empathize, with you. You are trying to present a logical argument, to a lot of people who do not think in a logical way.
I can understand people's reaction to the title of the thread...big deal...the OP got excited AND it IS a significant sighting by MANY people AT THE SAME TIME. NOT TO MENTION PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

It is also obvious that many of these antagonists have'nt bothered to watch the hour long documentary of the insident, and are just blindly following their denial and If I have'nt seen it RUBBISH.

If that is their attitude, then they dont understand too much then.
Have they been on the Moon?...The scratchy transmission could all be fake.
Have they seen Tesla or his experiments in real life?
Have they seen a great white shark? maybe all the attacks are faked and the "Shark" is CGI?
I can mention Millions of things these people take for granted, because it fits their reality and people have told them, BUT they actually havent seen!!!.

YET, they staunchly defend their own opinion that. "If I havent seen it, then it doesnt exist".

Sadly this is 1000 year old Dark Ages, head in the sand, closed mind thought.

Perhaps they should view the Documentary for once, THEN make a comment.

Thankyou Brighter for trying to inject some logic and reason.





posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
My take is that is was an experimental aircraft.

The men in uniforms were there way to fast, and the uniforms sound more like U.S. Air Force.


The Cessna's are a quandry though, if it was indeed a test flight you'd think they'd have better chase planes.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


I just don't see why the military would fly what would clearly be ultra top secret anti-gravity craft into civilian airspace, let alone land them right in the middle of a school yard mid-day. And you see this pattern with so many of these UFO sightings, where these things are flying right out in the open. This does not at all look like any kind of military exercise.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
This is indeed very interesting. I have heard this story many times before in books but never backed up with all the info you have provided. Thank you for that.

I must admit this does not scream aliens at me but more inclined to belive it would be a government test of a UAV or new type of aircraft however we have not yet seen anything similar to this technology in everyday use yet which suggests it may have been unsuccesful or so successful that it was hidden for good.

Does seem a bit peculiar to test such an aircraft in plain view.

Due to the close proximity in time of the Roswell incident and the UFO hysteria of the 60s and 70s i am always very dubious about sightings in this period. Way way to many of them for such a short period of time and then a huge decrease in sightings as the hysteria died out...

Good work though.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acessallareas


Does seem a bit peculiar to test such an aircraft in plain view.




I'd have to agree with that statement. It also seems strange to test this one in plain sight of an entire neighborhood two years later in California.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Acessallareas
 


Such blatant displays of advanced technology are certainly not the norm for "secret military craft". One has to consider the fact that objects essentially like this one have been reported from all over the world for decades. If someone can find this pattern of deployment in the operation of any other previously secret aircraft I would be extremely interested to know. I'm guessing it has never occurred.

The National Institute for Discovery Science did an analysis of reports of so-called "flying triangles", which have been reported in increasing numbers since the 1980s. Some of their conclusions are pertinent to this discussion:


Prior to acknowledgement of the F-117 and B-2 aircraft, only rare night time sightings occurred in the sparsely populated sections of Nevada, California and a few other states (see F-117 and B-2 in 12). Flying at low altitude over populated areas was rarely reported for the F-117 or B-2.

In contrast, the Flying Triangle deployment, especially during the 1990s, appears more consistent with the open and public operation of these aircraft. In some cases (for example see the above description of the Port Washington Triangle), the deployment may be more consistent with an attempt to display or to be noticed.


source

It's also good to remember that "flying saucers" typically display a level of technology far in advance of relatively primitive craft like the B-2 and the F-117, and have been doing so since at least the 1940s.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
I can understand people's reaction to the title of the thread...big deal...the OP got excited AND it IS a significant sighting by MANY people AT THE SAME TIME. NOT TO MENTION PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Whilst I agree with most of your post I wasn't happy with "the OP got excited"
In the OP I said


For me this case proves one of two things.
1. Aliens landed.
or
2. The military had anti gravity capability as far back as 1966.

It wan't excitement, if anything it was a need to make people realise we are likely being denied technology that would benefit mankind and the health of our planet. I have posted elsewhere in this thread that my own belief is these craft were man made, though I remain open minded because it doesn't make sense to reveal something that is supposed to be secret

 

Some people have taken issue with the thread title. I fail to see what is wrong with it. I did not claim proof of aliens, yet that is what MANY posters have assumed. I claimed proof of flying saucers and I firmly believe this case IS proof.

 

The last two or three pages of this thread have been extremely interesting. Most of you appear to be well educated (I wasn't) and able to present your idea's inteligently. I have enjoyed your posts, thanks.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
I was having a conversation with someone the other night about all of this UFO stuff. So I asked a very simple question. Why in the last 80 years has no one shot dead a alien or shot down a UFO for us all to see? It's the most simple question to ask.


There was mid-air collision over Roswell,NM in July 1947.

One self-destructed and the pieces fell to the ground on the Brazel Ranch.

The other Top Hat Spacecraft was damaged but made a controlled landing near

Magdalena, NM about 75 miles southwest of Albuquerque, NM.

2 Grays were dead , 1 was injured and the 4th Gray was just fine.

All evidence was moved to Los Alamos National Laboratory.

At the time that was the nearest secure government facility.

It's all discussed in the book - Crash at Corona by Stanton Friedman- .



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acessallareas
This is indeed very interesting.... Does seem a bit peculiar to test such an aircraft in plain view....

Due to the close proximity in time of the Roswell incident and the UFO hysteria of the 60s and 70s i am always very dubious about sightings in this period. Way way to many of them for such a short period of time and then a huge decrease in sightings as the hysteria died out...


Keep in mind that there is an excellent reason as to why the quality and quantity of good sightings decreased after around 1970, and it's discussed much too rarely. It has little to do with the 'hysteria' back then, in my opinion. Instead, what happened is that a whole, important class of sightings -- those involving military pilots and / or are military radars, which make up a great many of the strong unexplained cases from back then -- were basically censored from public view after 1970. The military simply closed its books, and the Condon Report (though easily shown to be extremely faulty) had a chilling effect on military and civilian witnesses as well. It was now even LESS likely that those with the highest credibility would report a sighting....

Note what has happened over the years since open reporting of these military witness / pilot / radar cases has ceased:
--military cases WERE included in Blue Book Special Report 14. It found about 20% unknowns. (Good unknowns, that is; a separate ~10% of cases had 'Insufficient Information'.)
--military cases WERE included in the final, core Blue Book data, and though officially only about 6% of cases were classified as unknowns, Hynek, McDonald, Sparks, and other reputable researchers have said that the true unknowns in that data probably comprise at least 20%. (See ** below.)
--military cases WERE included in the Condon Report, and though it only looked at a sample of under 100 sightings, and despite the Report's disconnected conclusions, we STILL see an "unknown" rate of about 30%.
-- such military cases are NOT in play nowadays, or at least only rarely. And now we all default to this tired old "5% unknown" line. It's the accepted standard.

How'd we get from 20% or more down to 5%? By having the best cases taken from us, by a clearly secretive and embarrassed government. And by having some of the easy-to-explain cases (those that would have once been filtered out before a report was even prepared) included in the mass of sightings now in public databases.

It's a lot easier for ignorant skeptics to call 5% a mere and expected "residue of unknowns" than it is to say the same about 20%....

I don't think there is any evidence that the quality or quantity of sightings has significantly decreased after 1970. We simply can't know. But what has definitely changed is public access to the good military cases, and less willingness to report in almost all circles.

--------------------------
**From Hynek's CUFOS:

Sparks: "Much more disturbing are the indications from my limited review of BB cases that there may be as many as possibly 4,000 Unexplained UFO cases miscategorized as IFO's in the BB files. McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Zaphod58 posted this vid in another thread. It gave me an Ah Ha moment. Yes, I have proof too. Here it is.
www.youtube.com...
So yes, this explains why they have this shape and why they get hot. They exist. I was wrong.

These are ones you can go touch now. They may be less advanced but they exist for you to see. Do you see them?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   


Why in the last 80 years has no one shot dead a alien or shot down a UFO for us all to see? It's the most simple question to ask.


How many SR-71s were shot down? B2s?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Excellent points T&S. Here's just a brief overview of one of the Blue Book cases that is officially "explained" as a conventional object:




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   


Why in the last 80 years has no one shot dead a alien or shot down a UFO for us all to see? It's the most simple question to ask.


To me, that's similar to asking why some indigenous tribe in the middle of nowhere has not used their stones and arrows to shoot down an F-16.

Do you think the 3 people below are ridiculed by their peers? ;-)
(We can be pretty sure they at least don't have to contend with "pics or it didn't happen".... )




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
reply to post by Brighter
 


Brighter, I empathize, with you. You are trying to present a logical argument, to a lot of people who do not think in a logical way.
I can understand people's reaction to the title of the thread...big deal...the OP got excited AND it IS a significant sighting by MANY people AT THE SAME TIME. NOT TO MENTION PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

It is also obvious that many of these antagonists have'nt bothered to watch the hour long documentary of the insident, and are just blindly following their denial and If I have'nt seen it RUBBISH.

If that is their attitude, then they dont understand too much then.
Have they been on the Moon?...The scratchy transmission could all be fake.
Have they seen Tesla or his experiments in real life?
Have they seen a great white shark? maybe all the attacks are faked and the "Shark" is CGI?
I can mention Millions of things these people take for granted, because it fits their reality and people have told them, BUT they actually havent seen!!!.

YET, they staunchly defend their own opinion that. "If I havent seen it, then it doesnt exist".

Sadly this is 1000 year old Dark Ages, head in the sand, closed mind thought.

Perhaps they should view the Documentary for once, THEN make a comment.

Thankyou Brighter for trying to inject some logic and reason.



Thanks for your comments.

I actually don't think the title of this thread is too far off.

Empirical (perceptual) evidence, when sufficient to justify a belief, can be considered proof. Especially if such evidence is a part of a multiple-witness sighting with corroborating stories.

In order to prove the existence of UFOs, you don't need to have captured one and dismantled it in a laboratory, just as little as you'd need to capture a bluebird and dissect it in order to prove the existence of bluebirds. You would just need some reliable reports from birdwatchers where they report seeing a bird of a certain size, shape, color, sound, etc. Especially if multiple witnesses see such a bird simultaneously, and all of their stories corroborate. And if you have multiple occurrences of such multiple-witness cases, then you start to build an evidence base that should be sufficient to convince any rational, unbiased party of the existence of bluebirds.

If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.

I think that a lot of the confused thinking from skeptics arises from a kind of black-and-white thinking: "either you have irrefutable evidence, or you have no evidence". This is actually an elementary logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. It is when two possibilities are presented as exhaustive when they are not. From the psychological point of view, it is often employed to 'frame' a debate in order to force a certain conclusion. But of course we know that there are more than the two possibilities "either you have irrefutable evidence, or you have no evidence". You could, say, have something between those extremes, like sufficient evidence. If two groups of sightings occur of birdwatchers who all report seeing a blue bird with certain properties, and all of the stories corroborate, then we would have sufficient evidence for the existence of bluebirds, but not irrefutable evidence. Of course, if there were only these two instances, then we might think that someone simply painted a bird to trick people. But what if there are many thousands of group-sightings of blue birds of a period of over 70 years? Even without irrefutable evidence of an actual physical specimen, there would still be more than sufficient evidence to justify a belief in bluebirds.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 




In order to prove the existence of UFOs, you don't need to have captured one and dismantled it in a laboratory, just as little as you'd need to capture a bluebird and dissect it in order to prove the existence of bluebirds.


it depends what you mean by UFO? nobody denies people see things in the sky they can't identify but that doesn't mean anything. It just means they cant identify it.

If your saying "UFO" as in a craft of unknown origin then yes ultimately you need repeatable testable evidence for it to be proven to be a craft. If those bird watchers claimed to see a bird that has never been discovered before they need a specimen captured before science will accept their claims.

Nobody accepted colossal squid existed before they had a sample.

In the case of UFOs i think a nice clear video of a craft of unknown origin doing incredible manoeuvres would be very strong evidence
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 


My theory on that is that if it was in-fact man made... maybe it was having troubles flying?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aarcadius
0o well that was a let down... a few pictures of some teachers and a bit of text.


...And eyewitness accounts from teachers and students.


Originally posted by AarcadiusWild man with a title like that by the way... if you recently have received the keys to your very own sports model saucer THEN and ONLY then can you say that you have proof...


No, not really. Eyewitness accounts, military cover-ups and death bed testimony is enough. However, pictures and videos are a bonus.


Originally posted by Aarcadiusotherwise a few teachers talking rubbish is just that. i didn't believe teachers when i was in school and now i make more then most of them =D life lesson learned.


Has is not occurred to you that teachers are incredibly smart people? I guess not. I have to say you seem to lack respect towards your peers. Money is not everything.

Nonetheless I'm off to collect my sports model saucer...From the pound shop.
edit on 17-7-2012 by ProfessorT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Oops. That video I posted above was the wrong one. It was supposed to be this one:




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Brighter

it depends what you mean by UFO? nobody denies people see things in the sky they can't identify but that doesn't mean anything. It just means they cant identify it.

If your saying "UFO" as in a craft of unknown origin then yes ultimately you need repeatable testable evidence for it to be proven to be a craft.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


You're mischaracterizing the phenomenon, yeti. The UFO problem isn't simply about "things people see in the sky that they can't identify", as though there were nothing more to say. The objects have definite, identifiable characteristics such as geometric shape and metallic appearance, and they display seemingly intelligent behavior.

As far as terminology, we can probably dispense with the word "craft" altogether and just go with "object", although it wouldn't be a tremendous stretch to infer that an object with the above characteristics might be a craft.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Ever since I discovered this case I have wondered - why there? why land next to a school?

Fact
There were two identical objects.
They both landed in a controled manner.
They floated up and moved to another location a few yards away and landed again.
Many children (and adults) were able to get close to them.
They took off and left at great speed when the cessna's and the uniformed people arrived.
The uniformed people removed all evidence and threatened people who might talk.

Also we've heard of the event that happened at another school in africa where again two objects landed. On this occasion the school children saw the occupants who got out and watched the children. The children describe what we all refer to as the Grays.

I've said many times throughout this thread that my belief would be that they were man made. Now I'm begining to think they may have been alien, its the only answer that fits all the evidence.

What do you all think, alien or man made?





new topics
top topics
 
212
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join