undebunkable imo

you really don't want UFO's to be true do you :/
a reply to: Direne

a reply to: OwenTrousers

That's right, I confess.

John 4:48: So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.”

originally posted by: ArMaP
But, having said that, the fact is that any case with little or no physical evidence is always hard to prove either real or false, so it's no surprise there are so many "undebunked" cases.

In that context, saying cases are "undebunkable" because they have so little evidence is not necessarily a good thing.

I agree, the Varginha case is much more interesting, and it wasn't "debunked" either.

What do you think of the official explanation that the "space creature" the three girls saw fit the description of the local homeless man known as "mudinho"?

In regard to the wasteland creature, an official inquiry led by the Brazilian military authorities concluded in 2010 that the Silva sisters had actually came across a homeless, mentally unstable man nicknamed "Mudinho" covered in mud. The Commander of 24th Police Battalion Military "presented photographs (...) a citizen known as Mudinho, who probably has some mental disability and whose physical characteristics matched the description (...) make it likely that the hypothesis that this citizen, probably being dirty, due to the heavy rains and seen crouching by a wall, was mistaken by the three terrified girls as a space creature.”

Of course that says nothing about the UFO, but since the OP also brought up Larry Warren who claimed he saw aliens, I figured the OP is looking for stories about people seeing aliens.

originally posted by: OwenTrousers
you really don't want UFO's to be true do you :/
a reply to: Direne

Define what you mean by "UFOs to be true".
This was a true UFO until about a decade ago, nobody knew what it was before that:


Unfortunately, some like that youtube channel, are still claiming it's a UFO, even though we now know what they saw; it's been identified.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What do you think of the official explanation that the "space creature" the three girls saw fit the description of the local homeless man known as "mudinho"?

Not convincing.

If he was a local homeless man then it was likely that at least the oldest witness (22 years old) would have seen him before, so not very likely to mix it with "the devil", as they called the "creature" when they told the story to the girls' mother.

Also, if it was a man (even covered in mud) there was no reason for two girls aged 14 and 16 and 22 years old woman to get scared that way and to talk about "seeing the devil".

PS: just before posting I went looking for more information about it, as I never think of memorising any case in particular, only the general details, and found that on the 20th anniversary of the Varginha case, on an interview for a Brazilian TV network, the 22 years old witness, 42 on that interview, said that she knew the "Mudinho", so if it was him she would have recognized him.

originally posted by: ArMaP
PS: just before posting I went looking for more information about it, as I never think of memorising any case in particular, only the general details, and found that on the 20th anniversary of the Varginha case, on an interview for a Brazilian TV network, the 22 years old witness, 42 on that interview, said that she knew the "Mudinho", so if it was him she would have recognized him.

You could admit on national television that you as an adult person mistook a hobo for an alien 20 years ago and end everything there, or you could drag the whole thing another 20 years too keep your face, continue to appear on television to gain more attention and financial benefits. This event literally started tourism in that location. They have saucer shaped bus stops and sell alien dolls. No one in their right mind would try to undermine that at this point.

a reply to: iknowyou

Even if she had admitted that she was mistaken I don't think it would make any difference for the town, as the event is more than just their sighting.

Also, although the town may have gained from it, neither of the witnesses did, as they were harassed by the population, specially the two girls, at school. As far as I know they only appeared once on TV.

In the varginha case it should be noted the death of the militar police Marco Eli Chereze, who "touched" the creature and died several days later from septicaemia, the mudinho dude could be a possibility, but how could he kill the police by skin contact?

You see them, yet your eyes are closed.
a reply to: Direne

originally posted by: tekkaman
In the varginha case it should be noted the death of the militar police Marco Eli Chereze, who "touched" the creature and died several days later from septicaemia, the mudinho dude could be a possibility, but how could he kill the police by skin contact?

There are animals and plants that can be extremely toxic if just touched. Poison dart frog comes to mind, which although generally not lethal could be bad for somebody already in bad physical health.

a reply to: OwenTrousers

Oh, but there is another possibility you haven't even considered: I don't see them. I see you... from them.

a reply to: canucks555
What do you think about the Kecksburg incident?

a reply to: canucks555

IMO you can put * next to all those cases apart from Turkey, which was a boat, was it not?

My guess is discoveries in physics during the 40’s were made, still kept under wraps, even though you can find tidbits/clues here and there. It resulted in some pretty radical technology that some parts of the military , certain departments in the government and close contractors have under wraps. Which in short is why the UFO/UAP subject is riddled with so much misinformation.

a reply to: saskwatch

In regards to Rendlesham, this post is ignorant in so many ways. Unfortunately it goes on far too often and time and effort has to be wasted correcting ignorant posts like this full of imagination and low on facts.

rendelsham case

It's spelt Rendlesham but as we can all see, spelling, grammar and punctation aren't particularly a strong point here.

1. larry warren brought this case to the public, i believe 90% of what larry said but i need more witnesses to come forward to back up some of his testimony, and i hope they go on record as theyre aging and might start dieing off without telling their story, larry stated he saw the materialization of a machine in front of up to 70 militarey people in a field on the third night of engagement

Firstly there are plenty of other witnesses. All with differing stories to Larry Warren.

Larry Warren has been discredited even by his co-author Peter Robbins for numerous statements regarding the case and elements of his life story which are patently false as Arbi pointed out earlier. It became irreconcilable and Peter Robbins decided to part ways in 2016

2. col halt participated on the third night and documented it with a tape recorder and eventually said he thought what they experienced was either et or id and was controlled by a mothership? if i remember correctly

Colonel Halt reported the incident (with an inaccurate date) as "Unexplained Lights" to the UK MoD in January of 1981 in the now infamous memo.

upload.wikimedia.org...

It wasn't until 2010 when he gave a statement to UFO buff and ex-railway cop Gary Heseltine saying

"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and UK were and have been complicit in trying to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham by use of well practised methods of disinformation. "

He can believe as he chooses. But he was also supposedly working on a film script with Heseltine at the time. Something which never transpired.Additionally, Halt had long denied Larry Warren was involved.

3. john burroughs and his partner chase a flying pyramid through the forest on the first night and he supposedly had a shadowy creature run down a laser beam on top of him

Well Burroughs described what he saw only as lights on the first night.

....“On the night of 25-26 Dec at around 3:00, while on patrol down at East Gate, myself and my partner saw lights coming from the woods due east of the gate. The lights were red and blue, the red one above the blue one, and they were flashing on and off...We asked permission to go and see what it was.... You could see the lights down by a farmer’s house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer’s house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse. We had just passed a creak and were told to come back when we saw a blue light to our left in the trees. It was only there for a minute and just streaked away. After that we didn’t see anything and returned to the truck.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any idea where you get the 'shadowy creature' running down a laser beam from???

You go onto to say

4. other evidence included landing gear marks, damaged trees, high radiation levels, etc.

The landing site and markings were photographed. Whether you could make a case for them showing landing gear marks is probably a bit of a stretch.





The damaged trees were actually nothing more than trees marked up ready for felling by Forestry workers before the incident happened. It's a matter of public record.

The radiation was considered "above background level" but not deemed of any real danger originally, In fact no one even considered taking a Geiger Counter out until 2 nights after the original incident!! However, Giles Cowling, who originally made the statement reconsidered it when he found out the type of equipment being used and clarified the position.

"I share the NRPB view that the use of a high-range survey instruments to measure (accurately) environmental levels of radiation is somewhat questionable and this must throw some doubt on the validity of the data reported.”

question of the day is has anybody done a deep dive on these two cases and believe theres a mundane explanation for them? please explain down below

There might be a mundane explanation. There might not. But the testimony of the likes of Halt, Warren and Penniston have harmed this case more than they've helped it.

There are two huge threads on the incident. The second which you may have not notied on the main page of this very sub-forum.

Rendlesham Forest, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

I must admit that this

The test flight of the PSV-25S over the transect Nevada-Arizona, gave birth to the so called Phoenix Lights sighting and caused consolidated the basic premise we wish to induce on the population, i.e. that their technology is vastly superior to ours, their spirituality is vastly superior to ours, and their societies are vastly superior to ours. The pursuit of perfection is of course a fabricated religious goal.

is a very interesting snippet.

This whole thing, of reducing neural correlates of consciousness down to universal
'sub-phonemes' is utterly fascinating in general, and this snippet in particular.

On the phoneme front, there's the obvious societal control aspect, but if you get
good at this, you gain the ability to track internet/societal memes, in a variety
of NSA-captured (and otherwise captured) text, and by dissembling it to that level,
you gain the ability to track meme infestations like a real-time global epidemiology
map.

Uttelry fascinating that some people are attempting this, and have some capability in
this regard.

As for the PSV thing, its' the same thing that A**** was hopped up on, from that Russian
UFO cult. It's so hard to trace things like this, back to the originators.

But just the fact that there are multiple parties infected with the PSV 'virus' utterly
fascinates me.

You know why when it is said that if you see animals running or fleeing in some direction to follow them? Getting your sense or intelligence to do such a thing is nearly impossible... typically since whatever it is occuring isn't a known or a norm people are gonna stand there on awe or dumb like a deer in headlights.

UFO encounter the same way; so what are you expecting of people that have had them?

The government has already said yes they do exist and so many people are happy they finally admitted it. what would we expect then from the government? In what capacity do they exist in relation to us known and unknown? Anything they do we should be aware of instead of stand there sit there or lay there like a dumb animal? That as of yet as far as I know? We haven't gotten.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Where you got this Russian UFO cult stuff from is unknown to me, but you have talked about it once or twice before. A_0 however was talking about very real projects mixed with BS. How much of that story is true remains in darkness. But a whole lot of allegory was used.

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Where you got this Russian UFO cult stuff from is unknown to me, but you have talked about it once or twice before. A_0 however was talking about very real projects mixed with BS. How much of that story is true remains in darkness. But a whole lot of allegory was used.

I don't disagree.

But those very real projects are mostly irrelevant and promote hysteria
for no valid reason in the UFO believer crowd.

originally posted by: saskwatch
these two cases down below havent been debunked yet and boy they have tried, both had a lot of military witnesses and one had alot of other evidence but the strangest part of all is they both were supposed to be secret operations never meant to be known by the general public and to this day seems to be ignored by the media, the public, and even by many ufo researchers, how can this be? is there some type of ufo blind spot? is this why ufos can be everywhere and nowhere? and these are just two cases, so here are just some of the interesting info from these cases

idusmartias: "this is as silly as things get on this forum. sometimes it is not necessary to debunk what turn out to be outrageous claims."

rendelsham case

1. larry warren brought this case to the public, i believe 90% of what larry said but i need more witnesses to come forward to back up some of his testimony, and i hope they go on record as theyre aging and might start dieing off without telling their story, larry stated he saw the materialization of a machine in front of up to 70 militarey people in a field on the third night of engagement

2. col halt participated on the third night and documented it with a tape recorder and eventually said he thought what they experienced was either et or id and was controlled by a mothership? if i remember correctly

idusmartias: "the original acceptable explanation is that the oscillating light was from a lighthouse beacon because of its repeat regularity".

3. john burroughs and his partner chase a flying pyramid through the forest on the first night and he supposedly had a shadowy creature run down a laser beam on top of him then run back up the beam on the third night, he later stated he believed that he was possibly abducted by whatever this was, he also was given disability benefits by the us govt because he believed his health was adverserly affected by the event and the govt seems to have agreed

4. other evidence included landing gear marks, damaged trees, high radiation levels, etc.

theres more to this case but just wanted to share a few things that stuck out to me, i still dont know why this case is pretty much ignored

idusmartias: "uninteresting due to it sounding like a tall tale".

varghia brazil

1. this happened in january 1996 and ufo researchers were on the ground within days

2. although there was some testimony of a submarine looking flying craft was fluttering out the backside at low altitudes this case was centered around the creatures that were seen around the town, i think there were at least 3 creatures and possibly more, 4ft tall, brown oily skin, red eyes, two horns on the head, etc.

3. this case hinges on the off the record testimony of many military people and first responders, from people who captured one of the creatures with a net to the handling of one of the creatures from the side of the road, and supposedly one of the best autopsy people in the world autopsied one of the creatures

4. there was some on the record testimony such as a military leader saying what happened was there was a preganant dwarf brought to the hospital thats all it was, boy the people responsible for making cover stories are terrible at it, remember roswell when they said its not a weather balloon its a super secret weather balloon, i guess it was so secret they didnt even know it was missing, i mean it was sitting there on some guys ranch for like 2 weeks

anyway im not saying its aliens but something strange is going on and nobody wants to talk about it, maybe its just to weird or to scary or maybe not many people know about it

idusmartias: "ridiculous and uninteresting. Roswell? dig yourself. It wasn't a super secret weather balloon, it was just a secret balloon project. get some smarts, be a better researcher otherwise you're just beating your gums".

question of the day is has anybody done a deep dive on these two cases and believe theres a mundane explanation for them? please explain down below

a reply to: saskwatch

Undebunkable require evidence I have seen. I have only seen people talking about crafts with weird symbols on them, as trustworthy as their accounts appear.

I've seen the Tic-Tac video, and the radar returns from 9-14 orbs surrounding a destroyer from the local Naval Base.

The indisputable ones are hearing the servicemen discuss an obvious orb going into the ocean and discussing it's splash.

Now It's statement of fact. it's visceral. There is no disputing there are flying objects that move within a seemingly neutral gravitational pocket.

One can speculate in whatever they want is causing its anti-gravitational effect but you can't dispute the "leaked" and admitted to videos.

Say what what you will, at least they haphazardly declassify enough for people to draw their own conclusion.

It's all there. But I feel it's hidden under a deliberate veil of obfuscation and accounts that drag any valid ones through the muck of half brain dead folktales.

originally posted by: Degradation33
The indisputable ones are hearing the servicemen discuss an obvious orb going into the ocean and discussing it's splash.

I saw that same leaked video where the servicemen discussed the splash. It is indisputable that the video exists and that the men in the video discuss a splash. Beyond that, what it shows is entirely disputable, since it's an unknown aerial phenomenon or UAP. I strongly suspect there was no spash, and that discussion of a "splash" was a naive misinterpretation by those involved.

Omaha Sphere UFO: "There's no clear splashdown" t=17s

That video merely displays the inability of servicemen to interpret vague sensor data, as have the three videos released by the pentagon, such as the misinterpretation of "sudden movement" in the FLIR video which is an illusion (there's really no "sudden movement"), the illusion of speed in the "gofast" video which gives an illusion of "going fast" where the object is really moving slowly, and the illusion of a rotating object in the "Gimbal" video which anybody with half a brian can tell from the name of the video given by the pentagon that the rotation is a gimbal effect, another illusion. I admit I can see the same misinterpretations the military personnel see, and under similar circumstances, I might have made the same misinterpretations myself as the data appeared live without time to analyze it.

Explained: New Navy UFO Videos

But we have had time to analyze these videos and we know they nearly all show misinterpretations of what's recorded as discussed in the link above. The video you are talking about with people discussing splashdown where Corbell refers to "transmedium" is completely unwarranted speculation again fueled by naive interpretations by people who lack analytical and critical thinking skills.

We may not be able to positively identify these objects but they are all quite unremarkable once a proper analysis is performed.

One can speculate in whatever they want is causing its anti-gravitational effect but you can't dispute the "leaked" and admitted to videos.

I don't know what you mean by "anti-gravitational effect", but the "gofast" video which shows what may just be a balloon has been said to show "anti-gravity" properties, staying in the air with no visible means of propulsion. Yeah, that's what balloons do but I am not sure it meets my definition of "anti-gravity", since it is actually gravity which makes balloons airborne.

Another ridiculous misinterpretation appears in the video you linked, which Jeremy Corbell claimed shows a "flying pyramid", which is probably just an ordinary aircraft with blinking navigaion lights, out of focus. So while the existence of the video is not disputed, Corbell's ridiculous interpretation is not only disputed, it's been shown to be completely wrong and merely documents his incompetence as a photographer for not being able to recognize out of focus objects.

"Pyramid UFO" - NEW FOOTAGE. It's Just Bokeh, not a Pyramid

It's all there. But I feel it's hidden under a deliberate veil of obfuscation and accounts that drag any valid ones through the muck of half brain dead folktales.

You might be right about obfuscation. I have high confidence that competent military analysts are able to determine that Corbell's leaked "flying pyramid" is an out of focus aircraft with blinking navigation lights (in fact they may have a longer version of the video which confirms that), and thus leaking an edited version of the video to Corbell who will misinterpret what the video shows is likely some sort of obfuscation, in the form of "muddying the waters". Lue Elizondo of course has 20 years experience in counterintelligence, and it's unclear to me whether he's actually still involved in such activities when he talks about UAPs, which include things like obfuscation. I think some people may think such obfuscation is a perfectly reasonable intelligence tactic to obscure what is really going on in the skies. Aliens are always a possibility, but it's likely the explanations for all the videos discussed are far more down to earth, since none show unearthly behavior, despite uninformed claims to the contrary.