Satellite Reentries -- One Possible Source of 'Mothership UFO' reports?

originally posted by: scrounger
first i can find no reports the "flashes " he stated on the tape corresponded to the lighthouse

You should really read the Rendlesham forest thread, that's the link to part 2 which is on page 124 and part 1 has 299 pages so with 423 pages between then you can get answers to all your questions if you want them.

On Skeptoid, Halt's tape is superimposed with beeps at a 5 second interval, exactly matching the orfordness lighthouse.

Every lighthouse has a published interval at which it flashes. This is how sea captains are able to identify which light they're seeing. The Orfordness lighthouse has an interval of 5 seconds. Now listen to the same exchange again; I've added a beep at exactly five second intervals:

Go to that site if you want to heat Halt's tape with the beeps at the ligthhouse interval, it's a match. That light was the lighthouse. Some other lights were not the lighthouse.

second... since on the tape you can CLEARLY HEAR the light WAS MOVING..
how does a "lighthouse" (btw fixed in place and quite heavy) move so the flashes can move locations?

Again, ask these questions in the Rendlesham Forest thread. There's no evidence that light that flashed at 5 second intervals was moving, aside from the lighthouse having a rotating beacon. The beacon rotates, but the source doesn't move other than that rotation. That wasn't the only light. Some of the lights Halt saw were probably stars, the "star-like" lights that appeared to move as the Earth rotated.

third... he is the base commander right?

Ted Conrad, Halt's boss, was the base commander.

he is well aware of the land around the base right?

He was familiar with Bentwaters. He was confused because he wasn't at Bentwaters.

so how does he "forget" the lighthouse exists and "confuses" flashes from it?

He didn't forget the lighthouse, he was confused about the location. Halt lies about the location of the lighthouse in his affidavit, where he says it's to the southeast from where he was that night. It's more or less to the east from Woodbridge. Southeast was the direction of the lighthouse from Bentwaters.

When Halt looked east, he did not expect to see the lighthouse there, he thought it would be further south because that's where it was from Bentwaters.

Col. Halt's confusion about the direction of the Orfordness lighthouse

2. Evidence from the audiotape made by Col Halt on Night Two shows that the light flashed at the same rate as the Orford Ness lighthouse. Later on the tape, Halt described the light as lying ‘clear off to the coast’.
3. Although Col Halt maintains he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast, it is actually east of where he stood. Evidently Col. Halt confused it with another flashing light in the southeast, probably the more distant Shipwash lightship.
4. His mistake arose because he was used to seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast from his home base of Bentwaters, which lies to the north of Woodbridge.

If you want the details, read on...

im sorry but while people make mistakes those are few and far between when GUARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

If Halt was so worried about the nuclear weapons why did he take no action to defend them against the UFOs he though were invading the base? You said he was the base commander, no he was not. Hos boss Conrad was the base commander and Conrad didn't believe Halt:

Flat Earth Nukes

Halt’s testimony has grown and become more elaborate in the constant re-telling, encouraged by his UFOlogical minders. ..

Furthermore, as I have revealed in New Light on Rendlesham, Halt’s former boss, the RAF Bentwaters base commander Col Ted Conrad, has gone on record to say he was in direct radio contact with his deputy as Halt’s experience in the forest unfolded. Conrad says he had trained Security Police on patrol looking out for anything unusual. But despite “a sparkling, clear, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions” they saw nothing. Neither was anything unusual reported by RAF Air Defence radars. That led him to conclude there was no hard evidence that required further action.

Even worse, Halt’s own laconic official account of the events, set out in his famous memo to the British Ministry of Defence makes no mention any threat to base security or the nuclear weapons store. By his own account, after several hours spent pursuing UFOs through the forest he simply turned around and went home to bed, leaving lights still visible in the sky as dawn broke (which strongly suggests they were bright stars as identified by astronomer Ian Ridpath). ...

So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously.

But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?

again when you take the TOTALITY of the whole incident over the two days the claim of light house is at best laughable.

If you think the lighthouse is supposed to explain everything, it's your lack of research on the case that's laughable. It correlates with the 5 second interval on Halt's tape so that was the lighthouse, but other things happened that were not the lighthouse. The "starlike objects" Halt described that were probably stars, were not the lighthouse. They had apparent movement that was consistent with the Earth's rotation like stars would have, and they were obviously not the lighthouse. And what did Halt do about those? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, even though they were there, some people would say posing a threat to the nuclear weapons for hours. Stop thinking Halt was the base commander and research what the real base commander, Ted Conrad, had to say. Ted Conrad was looking at the same sky Halt was, and should have been able to see what Halt was seeing which he and others could hear reported over the radio, but he and the others didn't see what Halt claimed to be seeing. So he obviously didn't feel any action was needed based on what Halt claimed he was seeing. Maybe because the "starlike objects" Halt was describing were just stars, and Conrad didn't see anything threatening about some stars in the sky.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

nice long rant.

the only problem is for ANY OF IT to be considered you must assume the security officers and base commander is either complete morons or on that two day stretch forget everything they knew
forget the lighthouse exists, forget the terrain, forget all the training to determine threats.

in short become some random dude in the back 40 they dont know on way home from whatever.

it doesnt pass the smell test.

along with the tape (at least as presented before) corresponds to the flashing lighthouse.
AGAIN something they have seen all year long..

i also could point out that the report your using is incomplete and denies all logic

like the quote that somehow because he doesnt mention nuclear weapons that it discredits the sighting

you do know that the nuclear weapons were CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET and due to the delicate nature of them on english soil didnt have a big sign saying US NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPOT, COME AND SEE.
smh

btw you do know that it has come out the military airfield did have radar detect something that night.. didnt come out in initial reports

but hey keep pushing the narrative a HIGHLY TRAINED , DECORATED and high job reviews BASE COMMANDER of a NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPOT that had been there for at least a year or more (cant remember how long) suddenly forgets a lighthouse exists and flashes light .

that his highly trained security personnel to include a sgt forgot the same thing

because the military doesnt threaten them to keep silent over a "misidentification of a light house"

when one cant deal with the obvious flaws in your logic just find equally questionable reports to back it up

scrounger

a reply to: Arbitrageur

oh and nice attempt (well not really) at deflection with a personal shot claiming that i am basing everything that happened on the lighthouse

i guess the fact i was addressing (and torpedoing as clearly seen by your long rant) each of the claims involved of this incident that it was not possible a UFO/ alien ship.

first it was a "Case closed" claim of a russian spacecraft reentering .
even though the information available (if one cared to look) the claimed spacecraft did not enter in the time this happened and not over two days

then the claim of the lighthouse is used quite often and now a new claim (to which i never heard before this) that his claims on the tape timed with the flash of the lighthouse

that (much to your anger) has holes in that claim big enough to drive a mac truck though.

but hey if you want to believe that trained, decorated and professional airman and base commander guarding nuclear weapons are prone to "ufo hysteria" have at it

btw notice not one report can tie up all the loose ends and tell us what happened over those two nights

scrounger

originally posted by: Erno86 Both in it's two power color phases (bluish-white & fiery red-orange), fully functional foo fighters don't discernably display a fiery or smoky trail trailing behind it; according to my own naked human eyes.

Erno, regarding the fiery red-orange (as you term them) or as I do the amber orange type ufo orbs................ Their inner bodies are so different from all of the other types (which exhibit no lava flow evident at all) and it's something I think about on a regular basis. The nearest thing I've seen to the amber orange type actually is lava, the more I've considered it over the years the more I've come to realise the two might be from the same source. So we have there amber orange types that look like lava, in addition to which they are often seen around locations close to volcanoes, plus hill country over here in retain where volcanoes once existed. Maybe they are from the inner Earth. Are these things under our feet all the time? I don't know where I'm going with this but they are so similar, there might well be something to it.

a reply to: JimOberg

Forgetting my other queries the following is the one I am really interested in.

Do you know whether NASA, or some other agency, has the ability to monitor the upper atmosphere to detect something entering and if so is it looking in a specific area at a specific time or is there continual coverage ?

a reply to: scrounger

I find many people on ATS leaning towards a supranatural explanation for UFO events tend to keep things "top of their head" and superficial. Arguing points that aren't backed up with sources and citations and appealing to authority figures who say what they want to hear. Which appears to be what you are doing here too.

But let's at least keep the thread partly on topic first.

In regards to Rendlesham ,the satellite rocket booster from Cosmos 749 crossed the southern tip of Britain at around 21:09 on Dec 25th 1980. However, a bright comet was reported as "10 times brighter than Sirius" and appearing at 2:45 hrs on Boxing Day. This is close to the time that the USAF men ventured off base into UK territory in the forest. It is not known whether lights from the comet and the satellite rocket may have been sighted at the twin bases or not.

There is a report in New Scientist from January 1981 which confirms these celestial events.



The UK MoD's investigation included an inconclusive search for radar evidence that might have corroborated activity in the air. So the cause of the initial sighting still remains something of a mystery. Even though it is recorded in the intial witness statements that they eventually came across a flashing beacon [the Orforness Lighthouse].

...the claim of the lighthouse is used quite often and now a new claim (to which i never heard before this) that his claims on the tape timed with the flash of the lighthouse

This is a video of the now decommissioned lighthouse flashing alongside the audio of Halt's tape. It pretty much matches up.

...but hey keep pushing the narrative a HIGHLY TRAINED , DECORATED and high job reviews BASE COMMANDER of a NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPOT that had been there for at least a year or more (cant remember how long) suddenly forgets a lighthouse exists and flashes light .

Halt was not the Base Commander, he was the deputy. Halt was out in a dark forest where the surroundings would be unfamiliar to him. Reflections from lights in the nearby area and a sweeping light beam off the Orfordness lighthouse through the foliage can fool the eye. The fact that he did not call even a minor alert suggests he had no confidence in his later assertions.

Now the actual Base Commander was called Ted Conrad. He said of the incident in an interview with David Clarke....

....Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground...

Dr. David Clarke - Blog

So why aren't we appealing to the HIGHER authority of Colonel Halt's boss? A highly decorated officer who outranked him?

But as this isn't really relevant to this thread, I suggest you either take it up in the Rendlesham thread previously linked by Arbi or start your own thread on it.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I can't prove it...but our earthly avatar designation by the ET's is a rocket ship with a plume trail, followed by "ESS" --- which I believe stands for Earth Star System. Though I wonder when the ET's avatar of our populated planet will be changed to a disc shape.

The closest thing I can compare to a fiery balled foo fighter in it's red-orange power phase, is a miniature sun, that looks very much like the Betelgeuse star. The red orange power phase consists of swirling (fusion???) plasma, that contributes to electric currents that give rise to magnetic fields.

I'm speculating that the only time a foo fighter exhibits a fiery tail, is when the fiery, electrified plasma is ejected from the magnetic field (that surrounds the (possible) starship towards a military target. And I'm talking about the possibility that the ET's have thousands of tons of electrified plasma at their disposal --- Though frankly...I have no idea how much fusion plasma weighs.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: JimOberg

Forgetting my other queries the following is the one I am really interested in.

Do you know whether NASA, or some other agency, has the ability to monitor the upper atmosphere to detect something entering and if so is it looking in a specific area at a specific time or is there continual coverage ?

I'd be happy to discuss such questions on a thread devoted to them.

The RendleSham discussion was as always lively, but has little if anything to do with the theme of this thread.

I'm suggesting that some spectacularly famous 'UFO mothership' events, such as the famous 1996 Yukon overflight, or the France overflight in Nov 1990, or Maui last October and Oregon this March, were misinterpretations of satellite reentry fireball swarms. If so, there could be some profound implications for other 'classic' UFO mothership reports.


Jimmy Carter ‘UFO’ was NASA ‘barium rocket’
www.debunker.com...
T
op Soviet 1967 ‘UFO Flap’ was space-to-ground warhead tests
satobs.org...

1970s-1980s South American UFOs caused by Russian space launches satobs.org...

Space Age ‘space clouds’ from worldwide rocket launches
satobs.org...

California missile/rocket launches spark UFO reports
satobs.org...

Nov 07, 2015 Trident SLBM launch off California
satobs.org...

Norway Dec 2009 ‘spiral UFO’ was missile test www.astronautix.com...

Australia June 2010 ‘spiral UFO’ was Falcon9 rocket
satobs.org...

China July 2017 UFO was military missile test jamesoberg.com...

July 2, 2017 China’s Long March 5 launch failure seen from Philippines satobs.org...

September 20, 1977 -- Petrozavodsk "Jellyfish UFO" solved
www.jamesoberg.com...

SpaceX Falcon9 upper stage plumes
satobs.org...

Florida Twilight Phenomenon of Atlas Rocket Launch, Sep 2, 2015:
 satobs.org...

Russian ‘spiral UFO’ from routine rocket launches
satobs.org...

Dec 22, 2017 Falcon 9 VAFB launch 
satobs.org...

Public misinterpretations of the SpaceX launch on October 7, 2018: 
satobs.org...


FH [falcon heavy] escape burn to Mars Feb 06, 2018 observed from SW USA satobs.org...

Russian warhead tests and ‘spiral UFOs’
satobs.org...

Oct 26, 2017 ICBM launch over Siberia
satobs.org...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: ufoorbhunter



The closest thing I can compare to a fiery balled foo fighter in it's red-orange power phase, is a miniature sun, that looks very much like the Betelgeuse star. The red orange power phase consists of swirling (fusion???) plasma, that contributes to electric currents that give rise to magnetic fields.

It's an honour and a privilege to meet someone who has had a CE with the amber orange types or as you call them "a fiery balled foo fighter in it's red-orange power phase."

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: JimOberg

Forgetting my other queries the following is the one I am really interested in.

Do you know whether NASA, or some other agency, has the ability to monitor the upper atmosphere to detect something entering and if so is it looking in a specific area at a specific time or is there continual coverage ?

I'd be happy to discuss such questions on a thread devoted to them.

Here you go

a reply to: mirageman

I can show your nicely worded comment is nothing but deflection with one sentence YOU STATED"

"he is not the commander but deputy commander"

that is about as blunt word games as you can get

a "Deputy commander" is just as qualified as the commander and is his second in command so when he is NOT THERE or in some way unable to do his job he is QUALIFIED TO STEP IN .

that night he was THE BASE COMMANDER since the original base commander was off duty..

then after that to claim somehow a man CERTIFIED to be the BASE COMMANDER if the base commander was not there/killed/ect suddenly doesnt know the terrain, the lighthouse, ect he is supposed to take charge of if the base commander is not there?

really?

so AGAIN to justify the "lighthouse theory" you AGAIN have to presume that the ALL THE BASE PERSONNEL (from security police to DEPUTY AND BASE commander) assigned to PROTECTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS from all threats suddenly forgot everything about the area they are sitting in

all the "proof" of the lighthouse theory is "seems to fit the facts" at best
but when the whole incident is taken as a whole
it falls quite flat

yes it is POSSIBLE that it was not an alien craft.
but it sure as hell not been proven , and in many cases disproven, it was a comet, falling space junk or a lighthouse.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

You really should to take these comments into the Rendlesham Thread where all of this has been discussed in detail with documentation and testimony provided too.

...a "Deputy commander" is just as qualified as the commander and is his second in command so when he is NOT THERE or in some way unable to do his job he is QUALIFIED TO STEP IN . that night he was THE BASE COMMANDER since the original base commander was off duty..

My point was that you appealed to Halt's authority to make his story credible and believable. But by implication, were making out his superior isn't credible because he didn't see UFOs beaming lights down onto his base.

Halt was off duty at an awards dinner with all the other top brass the night he went stomping around a forest. His boss , Conrad, remained and kept in touch via a radio link. Neither of these men called a minor or major base alert nor notify UK authorities of any potential danger. There was a call for an RAF radar check and that came back negative around 3am. But Halt returned to base shortly afterwards, having taken no action.

Halt then informed UK authorities in a memo some two weeks later. Without checking any notes while composing it. Halt inexplicably quoted the wrong date and also gave a description of an object seen that neither his tape recording, nor the witness statements he had collected in early 1981 described. This harms his credibility from almost day one.. All you need to do is read the Halt Memo to verify this.

....then after that to claim somehow a man CERTIFIED to be the BASE COMMANDER if the base commander was not there/killed/ect suddenly doesnt know the terrain,

He didn't know the terrain. He had ventured off the airbase into a dense UK forest. This was technically a breach of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement too.

....all the "proof" of the lighthouse theory is "seems to fit the facts" at best but when the whole incident is taken as a whole it falls quite flat

The lighthouse forms a small part of the prosaic explanation. When all the original testimony is taken as a whole it is clear something certainly happened. But due to continued obfuscation it is difficult to say exactly what. Other than the very clear lack of any immediate call for support from the British military or even Halt's own base personnel. Halt and his team of five just kept wandering through the trees until they gave up and returned to base a few hours later.

yes it is POSSIBLE that it was not an alien craft. but it sure as hell not been proven , and in many cases disproven, it was a comet, falling space junk or a lighthouse.

The thing is that every UFO case remains unproven as an alien spacecraft. A whole mountain of nothing doesn't equal anything more than nothing.

If finding ET is considered the goal then we need better evidence not stories.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Well, that's progress.
Which 'Falcon Lake' incident?

www.cbc.ca...

This one where this dude is poking around a flying saucer near the ground and ends up getting torched by the exhaust. Not very much like a satellite re-entry.

a reply to: Blue Shift

"Not very much like a satellite re-entry."

Concur. I was thinking of the 1996 Yukon event. The satellite reentry argument for that event is very strong, it includes fireball sightings in Alaska from the ground and from aircraft , heading directly east towards the Yukon.

a reply to: Blue Shift
I haven't tried to calculate what percentage of cases are satellite re-entries, but I think it's a longer list than how many UFO observers are burned by the UFO. I know of that case and one other (aside from Colares) involving burns, but the list of satellite re-entries is much longer.

More importantly, the misperceptions involved with satellite re-entries are sometimes so far off that they teach us to not place too much weight on eyewitness testimony, because many times if you take witness observations at face value, they would cause you to rule out the actual cause of the UFO. I think that's an important point to consider in all cases where all we have is eyewitness testimony, and it justifies why scientists consider eyewitness testimony as unreliable evidence from a scientific perspective.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Many observers reported maneuvering including course and altitude changes, as well as hovering

So if we took eyewitness testimony at face value, we would rule out a satellite entry where the witness reports the object maneuvered, made course and altitude changes, or hovered, since satellite re-entries don't do those things. I see people in UFOlogy make these kinds of claims all the time, that "It couldn't have been X because the eyewitness said Y". We need something better than eyewitness testimony and now that everyone's got smartphones, we should be able to get something better, which we did in the case of the Hawaii event in October 2020.

In contrast, I would say the burned shirt of Stefan Michalak in the Falcon Lake incident can be considered some kind of scientific evidence of something. For starters we know a satellite re-entry 100 km away wouldn't do that to a shirt.

originally posted by: scrounger
so AGAIN to justify the "lighthouse theory" you AGAIN have to presume that the ALL THE BASE PERSONNEL (from security police to DEPUTY AND BASE commander) assigned to PROTECTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS from all threats suddenly forgot everything about the area they are sitting in

I'm not presuming they forgot, I'm reading the witness statement of Chris Armold who was actually there, who says they didn't know about the lighthouse.

ufoupdateslist.com...
The Chris Armold Interview with James Easton

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were.

I have no idea what the "strange colored lights" were, but it's clear from Armold's testimony that he didn't think they were from a flying object and didn't see any reason to be concerned about them. They also didn't appear to be from a plane crash which was what they were ostensibly sent out to look for.

This dialog running in your head that they were familiar with the terrain outside the base is fiction you have devised which contradicts Armold's statement. They were not supposed to be tromping around outside the base, so why would they be familiar with the terrain outside the base? Do you think you know better than Armold, who was actually there?

Halt perhaps knew the Orfordness lighthouse was to the southeast of Bentwaters where he was based, but he still claims it was to the southeast of Woodbridge which is not true. This is not a "he said she said" situation, it's a fact of geography which you can look up on a map, and compare to Halt's own audio tape which shows the direction of the UFO was in about the same direction as the lighthouse and flashed at exactly the same interval as the lighthouse. Now this doesn't mean the lighthouse explains everything as already covered. There may have been a genuine UFO of some sort too, but it seems silly to deny that the light in the direction of the Orfordness lighthouse (east, according to Halt's audiotape) flashing at the Orfordness lighthouse interval wasn't the orfordness lighthouse, which is what Halt claims, except he also falsely claim the Orfordness lighthouse was southeast from where he was, so his credibility is quite low. You can look at a map and listen to Halt's own audiotape to refute Halt's claim.

Jenny Randles is an author who think that while there may have been a genuine UFO in the series of events somewhere, her confidence is high that misperceptions undoubtedly caused some of the reports:

Whilst suggesting that a UAP, an unidentified atmospheric phenomenon of unknown origin, might have caused parts of the case, (Jenny Randles) noted: "Whilst some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen in Rendlesham Forest. We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

That was not always her opinion, but it's where she arrived after researching the facts extensively.

You seem to have another fantasy running around in your head that once we put people in charge of nuclear weapons, they are incapable of making mistakes. What a fantasy you have there. If only that was true.

a reply to: JimOberg

Geez , and here I thought it was just " Swamp Gas " .....

I find it so amazing the mental gymnastics done in debates like this to show it COULD NEVER BE a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

to the point (as in this discussion) that somehow people trained and prepare to defend NUCLEAR WEAPONS would suddenly go off the rails (as it were) and for TWO DAYS completely forget a lighthouse that was there oh for decades and more.

that they "forget" the terrain , "forget" objective reasoning and security proccedures.

that would make "large and multiple mistakes"

that after reviewing their OWN TAPE that they missed "light pulsing seems to match a lighthouse"

that would risk their MILITARY pension, reputation, ect to keep this up for years and years.

add to it that while the space debris was near the area but even later investigations SHOW it was not at time of the incident and it was not falling for two days.

i admit it could be something else than "alien"
but the other side states "it cant be" and defies logic in their claims

again military people DO make mistakes

but for two days and in direct defiance of their mission, training, ect?
not

BTW i noticed one claimed that "they need better witnesses" on UFO reports


how in hell do you not get better than MILTARY personnel , military pilots, regular seasoned pilots, ect?

good God people at this point i suspect alot of these posters fall into the "it must land on the whitehouse lawn" to be considered good evidence

smh

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I find it so amazing the mental gymnastics done in debates like this to show it COULD NEVER BE a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

That's not really the point. The point is showing that it could be something other than a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

That it is, would be what is known as an extraordinary claim. Those who are convinced that they are a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension will not be convinced otherwise. The rest of us would like to be convinced.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

I find it so amazing the mental gymnastics done in debates like this to show it COULD NEVER BE a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

That's not really the point. The point is showing that it could be something other than a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

That it is, would be what is known as an extraordinary claim. Those who are convinced that they are a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension will not be convinced otherwise. The rest of us would like to be convinced.

the problem is those who (like many here) believe it CANNOT be an alien ship (for one description) is IDENTICAL to those who claim it is.

this debate is clear example

when the non alien side is presented with clear facts that cast doubt on either it NOT being alien or their "proof" it isnt cant at least entertain the idea it could be and go though the "mental gymnastics" .

again just using this example.. i DONT KNOW if it is alien or not.. but the facts could lead to such a conclusion..

the other side says it just cant be and even when showing the space debris doesnt match up (sorry two hours difference and two days of events for example) and that all the base personnel would have to "make a mistake/forget" about a DECADES OLD light house over two days...

scrounger