The matter of UFO's is a real one

[Luckmeister]

That people see "things" in the sky that they can't identify is not in dispute. Making the ole' "switch-a-roo" and identifiying the "U" in UFO as aliens is where the problem begins.

Sidenote (since Goldstone won't be back until tomorrow): It's unfortunate that ET visitation believers have changed the meaning of UFO (in their minds) from Unidentified Flying Object to Alien Spacecraft. The result is that they exchange those meanings when reading or presenting government/military reports that use the term "UFO." I've seen believers cite those reports and say, "See, even the government is admitting it was ET."

That's why I've adopted the personal policy of using UFO only as it was originally intended; and ET Visitation, or ETV, for alien spacecraft. And that is the usage I'll employ when posting in this thread unless someone knows a better, widely accepted acronym instead. I know ETH is used a lot but I don't like using it when specifically referring to visiting spacecraft.

[Goldstone]

Unsupported generalization! Since you're stating that in present tense, I'll assume you're talking about today's radar. They still make mistakes and the farther back in history you go, the more error-prone they were. And since they seldom see U(nidentified)FOs, every case you cite could be one of those seldom-made mistakes.

ETA: By the way, a radar indication is a display of what antenna structures and electronics are receiving and presenting. There may be errors introduced in the process but "mistakes" are faulty interpretations of that display by people, and that is a big problem when UFO analysis comes into play.



It isn't? That's news to me.



Unsupported generalization! And do you mean from a recorded video or film of the radar? How often is a video record made, or was made 50 years ago? Details please.



Unsupported generalization! Please back it up and the others you have made just in that one paragraph, let alone in the rest of your wall of text.

First of all, why would it be a case of a radar picking something up first and then going to observe the craft? Whilst this happens, and happens because it is a matter of security, there are other more important cases where an aircraft has been spotted, but it wasn't until afterwards an investigation was carried out to find they had radar evidence. In this case, how can people say comments like I've seen in this thread stating ''they aren't viewing UFO's because they don't exist?''

Only a terrible definition of a UFO could lead someone to such a speculation. And even worse, denial of evidence pointing to their existences. There is overwhelming evidence objects pervade our skies every year to which the Ministry of Defense have no answers for. If they do have answers for most of these things, it is the usual conventional explanations which shadows most of blue books doctrine.

Also, blue book has a number of discrepencies, as Freidman has found.

[Goldstone]

Sidenote (since Goldstone won't be back until tomorrow): It's unfortunate that ET visitation believers have changed the meaning of UFO (in their minds) from Unidentified Flying Object to Alien Spacecraft. The result is that they exchange those meanings when reading or presenting government/military reports that use the term "UFO." I've seen believers cite those reports and say, "See, even the government is admitting it was ET."

That's why I've adopted the personal policy of using UFO only as it was originally intended; and ET Visitation, or ETV, for alien spacecraft. And that is the usage I'll employ when posting in this thread unless someone knows a better, widely accepted acronym instead. I know ETH is used a lot but I don't like using it when specifically referring to visiting spacecraft.

Well no offense, but if that is how you define a UFO as an alien visitation, then you are open for criticism that you might even have a rational opinion on such subjects. And UFO's are not intended naturally to be Aliens. If that was the case, they'd be called AFO's, Alien Flying Objects.

[Goldstone]

Why? Why would you "qoute" someone who is so obviously biased?

Nick Pope is biased? He has an opinion which has been founded from years of servitude to the British Department of Defense. He has studied this phenomenon and wouldn't lead anyone into any false belief. He is true to his facts and true to the subject at hand.

[Goldstone]

You start from a false premise, therefore your question is irrelevant.

It's not a false premise at all.

See, the memo is actually real. There was at some point, an agent working for the FBI who gathered evidence to suggest that UFO's did in fact crash in Roswell. He informs the Director that his informants where military officials. Now... I don't believe I am jumping the gun at all, so either the whole thing is true, the FBI is lying or the FBI was led on a goosechase provided by the US governement. Which is it?

[R.A.F.]

Nick Pope is biased? He has an opinion which has been founded from years of servitude to the British Department of Defense. He has studied this phenomenon and wouldn't lead anyone into any false belief. He is true to his facts and true to the subject at hand.

Please re-read my question before answering...re. polar orbit error.

I wasn't talking about Pope at all.

[R.A.F.]

It's not a false premise at all.

A little early for this thread to be going round and round in circles....

[Goldstone]

Unsupported generalization!

It's a matter of cross-reference. If someone observes the object first, and then someone goes and see's if radar picked up the object, that greately inhances the integrity of the original witness.

[Goldstone]

Please re-read my question before answering...re. polar orbit error.

I wasn't talking about Pope at all.

You must have mentioned Pope before, hence why I have answered you. You said he was ''biased''. That's not a fair account of his incredible knowledge on the subject.

[Goldstone]

Please re-read my question before answering...re. polar orbit error.

I just said, I am willing to let that drop if there is compelling evidence. Not all accounts I have wrote about or qouted can be easily dismissed.


For reference, atleast 75% of all qoutations can be traced back to Timothy Goods book. To reference check, start with his book.

[Luckmeister]

Well no offense, but if that is how you define a UFO as an alien visitation, then you are open for criticism that you might even have a rational opinion on such subjects. And UFO's are not intended naturally to be Aliens. If that was the case, they'd be called AFO's, Alien Flying Objects.

Reread my post. I'm stating that ET visitation believers are the ones who define it that way -- not me. I thought that was perfectly clear.

[R.A.F.]

I'm willing to discredit this if you feel so strongly about it.

?? I don't have any "feeling" about it whatsoever...I'm simply pointing out your mistake, and that your belief in this Roach fellow is not deserved.

Heck, you used that as a reason to believe in a conspiracy...since it just isn't true, are you now going to retract that claim??

There are a great deal more points to the OP though.

Which is why I politely asked you to not post such "walls of text"...please don't attempt to side track this thread with "but there is so much you haven't debunked" as YOU are the reason there is so much.

[Goldstone]

Belief? You have presented precisely Zero evidence. Nothing. This is a rational thinking website. And you produce bupkiss?

OK. I accept facts and evidence. Present some.

You can most of the qoutes in my page in Timothy Good's book, a UFO investigator. I haven't provided zero evidence.

My evidence lyes in my thorough investigation. I haven't fabricated anything either. I have no intentions to mislead on such a contraversial subject.

[R.A.F.]

To reference check, start with his book.

Irrelevant....Gold is not here, you are.

[Goldstone]

?? I don't have any "feeling" about it whatsoever...I'm simply pointing out your mistake, and that your belief in this Roach fellow is not deserved.

Heck, you used that as a reason to believe in a conspiracy...since it just isn't true, are you now going to retract that claim??



Which is why I politely asked you to not post such "walls of text"...please don't attempt to side track this thread with "but there is so much you haven't debunked" as YOU are the reason there is so much.

All evidence I welcome. Being proven wrong is not a bad thing, but a matter of enlightenment.


Is it just me, or is anyone else sick of the old, ''it must be birds,'' must be this... that... even though it contradicts what you are seeing?

Take the pheonix lights. If they where flares, then they would have fell beyond the horizon of the video where they originated. They where suspended in air for atleast an hour in that video, not only that... But if they were flares attached to parachutes which has been suggested by two individuals here, then how does that account for the darkened ''boomarang-like'' structure which the lights where attached?

[R.A.F.]

You must have mentioned Pope before, hence why I have answered you.

Check my posts...you are in error...why do you want to make this about Pope?

Franklin Roach, and his errors that you believe are what I am talking about...why are you ignoring that?

[R.A.F.]

Being proven wrong is not a bad thing...

Even better...prove yourself right.

Is it just me...

Yes, it is just you.

Take the pheonix lights.

No...that has it's own thread...please. stick to this discussion

[Goldstone]

Check my posts...you are in error...why do you want to make this about Pope?

Franklin Roach, and his errors that you believe are what I am talking about...why are you ignoring that?

I haven't ignored it at all!!!!!

I submit if the allegations are true. I just might not have enough time at present to actually evaluate all that information you linked to. There was certainly a lot of it. That again is a far cry from saying ''i am ignoring it''. I take aboard what you are saying, and I take it within good judgement of yourself that I so far am willing to let that one drop. It doesn't remove the fact that lovells flight is just one of many things mentioned in the OP.

[Luckmeister]

Well no offense, but if that is how you define a UFO as an alien visitation, then you are open for criticism that you might even have a rational opinion on such subjects. And UFO's are not intended naturally to be Aliens. If that was the case, they'd be called AFO's, Alien Flying Objects.

Okay, I can see now that your comment was intended generally, not specifically about me. You are one of the first to come here that uses the term (mostly) properly. I say "mostly" because you do make references to people understanding that "UFO's are real." Of course they're real. they are real unidentified objects, but used in that way, it sounds more like "alien spacecraft are real."

[Goldstone]

No...that has it's own thread...please. stick to this discussion

Don't assume just because the pheonix lights have their own thread that it cannot be discussed here. How many threads are on UFO's, but I've made the OP?

[Goldstone]

Okay, I can see now that your comment was intended generally, not specifically about me. You are one of the first to come here that uses the term (mostly) properly. I say "mostly" because you do make references to people understanding that "UFO's are real." Of course they're real. they are real unidentified objects, but used in that way, it sounds more like "alien spacecraft are real".

Good.

One of the biggest problems today is that no one actually believes UFO's exist. Once that hurdle is dealt with, then comes the question of who is intelligently flying these aircraft since we have a great deal of evidence suggesting someone is behind their flight patterns. I could sit all night and gather witness reports, mostly air force officials who have went to track them down, but evaded them at every cost.

[PetersCreek]

A reminder to all that moderators do the moderating here.

If...and only if...a reference to the Phoenix lights is relevant to the topic of this thread, one may bring it up. However, this isn't going to turn into another thread about the Phoenix lights.

[R.A.F.]

I just might not have enough time at present to actually evaluate all that information you linked to. There was certainly a lot of it.

One page...couldn't have taken me more than 5 minutes to read it.

I take it within good judgement of yourself that I so far am willing to let that one drop.

Too bad I'm not that "willing"...please either retract the particular claim or defend it.

It doesn't remove the fact that lovells flight is just one of many things mentioned in the OP.

I just don't think it necessary to debunk EVERY SINGLE WORD in the OP. Particularly since it is your "fault" there is so much to "cover".

[Goldstone]

One page...couldn't have taken me more than 5 minutes to read it.


.

Please... I am just to read it and take it for gospal? I don't know how anyone else conducts investigations, but I like to study facts, use them and cross-reference them before making any contentions on them.

[Goldstone]

I just don't think it necessary to debunk EVERY SINGLE WORD in the OP. Particularly since it is your "fault" there is so much to "cover".

You say I begin at a faulty premise?

[R.A.F.]

Either defend the claim or withdraw it...

[Goldstone]

See, it already sounds like you've made your mind up, and it doesn't matter what is presented in front of you, you necesseraly assume that it can be debunked so easily. I assume then it would come along the usual conventional explanations.

That isn't science. Nor a true investigation with eyes and mind open. That reminds me of the pioneers of blue book. They already settled before their investigation that UFO's where nonesense.

[R.A.F.]

You say I begin at a faulty premise?

Relevance to what I posted is????

You flooded the board with a wall of text...do you expect everything in the OP to be instantly answered?

Ridiculous...

[R.A.F.]

Either defend the claim or withdraw it...please

This is in response to post #57...

[R.A.F.]

...you necesseraly assume that it can be debunked so easily.

I know the ease at which these ideas can be debunked, because they are not new ideas...that you are unaware of this isn't my problem.


So, defending or retracting???