Notices
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 351
Like Tree119Likes

Thread: The Onion Drive

  1. #201  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    To someone who values science, there are many different kinds of evidence and they all fit into a hierarchy. Anecdotes, photographs and eye-witness testimony sit right at the bottom of the food chain simply because human memories aren't overly reliable and some people are intentionally dishonest. Right at the top of the food chain are things like reliably repeatable (by other people) experiments and physical artefacts examined and tested by more than one independent scientist. It's the mark of a good scientist to be able to rank your evidence appropriately. I hope that explains why almost everyone here is skeptical towards your claims. No one here is going to believe that the thing you saw was aliens, on your word alone.

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It means I had my facts wrong.
    something you seem to be intimately familiar with

    This forum does have its comedians.
    I didn't think you were intentionally trying to be funny... that changes things a bit.

    Only in the eye of the beholder.
    Cause there once was a man from nantucket
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."

    Why not talk about it?

    In 1952 several objects penetrated the air defence of America and out-flew our very best sent up ''there'' to intercept these objects. Not only where these objects ''seen by several fighter pilots'' but the radar evidence gave back the same location of the objects being seen.

    Reported, was that radar evidence showed that when the objects where seen to ''race off'' when being intercepted, that they moved at around 7000 mph.


    If you think talking about this is the problem, it isn't; people like you are the problem for thinking this 'evidence' is not important. It's very important: why? Simply because as I said before... we didn't have anything like that in our inventory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."

    Why not talk about it?

    In 1952 several objects penetrated the air defence of America and out-flew our very best sent up ''there'' to intercept these objects. Not only where these objects ''seen by several fighter pilots'' but the radar evidence gave back the same location of the objects being seen.

    Reported, was that radar evidence showed that when the objects where seen to ''race off'' when being intercepted, that they moved at around 7000 mph.


    If you think talking about this is the problem, it isn't; people like you are the problem for thinking this 'evidence' is not important. It's very important: why? Simply because as I said before... we didn't have anything like that in our inventory.
    That doesn't mean it was Aliens. The germans were engineering geniuses. how do you know it wasn't the russians using some tech germany sold them? This is not "evidence," it's hearsay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."

    Why not talk about it?

    In 1952 several objects penetrated the air defence of America and out-flew our very best sent up ''there'' to intercept these objects. Not only where these objects ''seen by several fighter pilots'' but the radar evidence gave back the same location of the objects being seen.

    Reported, was that radar evidence showed that when the objects where seen to ''race off'' when being intercepted, that they moved at around 7000 mph.


    If you think talking about this is the problem, it isn't; people like you are the problem for thinking this 'evidence' is not important. It's very important: why? Simply because as I said before... we didn't have anything like that in our inventory.
    Sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I mean here is that you are not backing up your claims. You are saying that US airspace was penetrated by a thing. Great, but I don't see a link to where that is from. You say there is a radar readout that displays the thing. Citation please. Pilots saw them? Okay, where are their quotes?

    Do you get where I'm going with this? You are making statements that you insist are true, but you aren't backing them up. Do you expect us to take your word for it? That's too much to ask. I'm not saying "don't talk about it." I am saying, "Talk about it, but back up your claims."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    And by the way, I am not the only one who has noticed there is a superior technology here. Plenty military officials have recently came forward.... in fact a 100 of them recently collaborated with a UFO investigator who filed their reports that there was something in our skies we currently cannot account for.
    Most of the people on the forum are clearly much smarter than you, does that mean they are aliens too? anything that is beyond your scope of grasp is aliens, right? I mean that is what you are offering as "evidence" in all of your other claims
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Oh sorry... absence of evidence. No, there is plenty evidence. There is an absence of proof.
    I'll try again: There is not plenty of evidence of the type necessary to support in any credible fashion the notion that LGMs are responsible.

    Little green men?


    Anyway... yes there is. Who in 1952 had the technology to fly at 7000 mph, when at least a decade later the X-15 plane appeared which could travel at the supersonic speed of a little over 4000 mph. This was America's fastest plane at the time.


    Once you can answer who had that technology, then you will offer evidence there is no evidence.
    Sigh. I guess you'll never get it, you're so blinded by your bias.

    The above statements by you are a perfect example of crank logic. Let's look at your "evidence." It's another unsourced, unsubstantiated, unexamined assertion by you. Is this what you think is persuasive, scientific argumentation? Does this meet the burden of "extraordinary evidence?" Can one seriously say that all terrestrial explanations have been investigated and rejected to the degree that LGMs are the only answer? Do you really believe that you will convince any of us with this feeble crap?

    Ridiculous. It's this kind of muddled nonsense that causes folks here to write you off as a loon. As I've advised, consider what your purpose in posting is. Do you merely want to blog your belief? If so, you've done that. Do you want to convince others that your belief is correct? You're doing a piss-poor job of that, and doing more poorly with each cranky post.
    PhDemon and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Clearly, UFOs are from the future.
    Or are built by a terrestrial race far older than humans but have remained hidden from us using their advanced technology.
    Or a very rare weather phenomenon.

    There is just as much little reason to claim that those explanations are correct as there is to claim it was aliens.
    tk421 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It was sent to all top photographic professionals at the MOD. Turns out, after a few months of investigation by Nick Pope, that the consensus was that the photograph couldn't have been faked.
    Er, what?
    After "investigation" by one man there was a consensus?
    And, it should be noted, that that man is an uncritical loon.

    I do, however, find your phrasing somewhat disingenuous. It implies that Nick Pope was among the "top ... professionals at the MOD [sic]". This is untrue.
    Pope left government employ in 2006 (and actually ceased any connection 1 with "UFOs" in his official capacity in '94. The Pitlockry [sic] UFO was in 2009.

    When this was determined, the photograph disappeared from the archives and Nicks own personal blow-up of the photographed UFO had been taken away by his boss.
    His boss? He's a freelance journalist. Are you saying he's oppressing himself?

    Because America has plenty tremendously large triangle objects that can speed off into the atmosphere in a second.
    You're going to have to supply a source for "tremendously large" since the link I found merely says "mysterious large diamond-shaped object", likewise, since the initial conclusion was that it was a Harrier then that indicates that there was little remarkable about its speed.
    Then again...
    Sorted.

    1 Part of Pope's dishonesty is that he's "built his reputation" on being an "MoD UFO investigator". In fact that was a minor part of his job - to collate UFO reports and see if there was any defence significance - a phrase which could mean several things, but, given what I know of the workings of UK military/ governmental institutions, indicates a attitude of "Are these "sightings" actually foreign [terrestrial] powers trying to pull a fast one and sneak in under the radar?" - NOT the much-promoted "OMG! Check to see if these aliens want to invade".
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 28th, 2014 at 03:50 AM. Reason: Link fixed, thanks RedPanda.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."

    Why not talk about it?

    In 1952 several objects penetrated the air defence of America and out-flew our very best sent up ''there'' to intercept these objects. Not only where these objects ''seen by several fighter pilots'' but the radar evidence gave back the same location of the objects being seen.

    Reported, was that radar evidence showed that when the objects where seen to ''race off'' when being intercepted, that they moved at around 7000 mph.


    If you think talking about this is the problem, it isn't; people like you are the problem for thinking this 'evidence' is not important. It's very important: why? Simply because as I said before... we didn't have anything like that in our inventory.
    That doesn't mean it was Aliens. The germans were engineering geniuses. how do you know it wasn't the russians using some tech germany sold them? This is not "evidence," it's hearsay.


    The Washington 1952 event, is one of the most well-documented UFO events of all time. It involved thousands and thousands of witnesses.


    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?

    My question was not rhetorical, it was a real question posed at you. I'm not being argumentative, I just want to know your opinion on who had this technology in 1952? If you say it is a based on ''hearsay''... then it clearly isn't. Radar evidence is not hearsay, thousands and thousands of people could have lied about it... but that's probably more unlikely than aliens visiting us!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?
    You have yet to show that those "UFOs" were indeed a "technology" and not some other explanation.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?
    You have yet to show that those "UFOs" were indeed a "technology" and not some other explanation.

    That's probably the most intelligible question posed yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    To this I answer... There doesn't seem to be any disagreement there was an intelligent control behind the machines of 1952, such that the general said ''they evaded us, as should be expected, each time we intercepted.''

    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    To this I answer... There doesn't seem to be any disagreement there was an intelligent control behind the machines of 1952, such that the general said ''they evaded us, as should be expected, each time we intercepted.''
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Yeah?
    It depends on what they were.
    If they were non-technological "objects" then any apparent "evasion" could well have been perceptual errors.
    In other words you first have to SHOW that they were truly objects, then you have to SHOW that they were technological and THEN you can go on to speculate about "intelligent control".

    [/quuote]You have yet to show that those "UFOs" were indeed a "technology" and not some other explanation.
    That's probably the most intelligible question posed yet.[/quote]
    Yeah. I notice you haven't answered it - despite, apparently, assuming that this is actually the case.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    To this I answer... There doesn't seem to be any disagreement there was an intelligent control behind the machines of 1952, such that the general said ''they evaded us, as should be expected, each time we intercepted.''
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Yeah?
    It depends on what they were.
    If they were non-technological "objects" then any apparent "evasion" could well have been perceptual errors.
    Oh but several objects did evade them in the air, either by approaching close or locking on for a clear shot. If they evade these things, this is sure strong evidence that they were under control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,245
    Wow man:

    Cat Chasing Dust in Sun Beam - YouTube

    Those dust particles are evading me... ​ALIENS!!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Then they must be humans from the future.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Wow man:

    Cat Chasing Dust in Sun Beam - YouTube

    Those dust particles are evading me... ​ALIENS!!!!!!


    Do you know concepts and differences of small and large?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Then they must be humans from the future.

    I've heard that theory as well. Jack Sarfatti actually believes UFO's are from the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Oh but several objects did evade them in the air, either by approaching close or locking on for a clear shot. If they evade these things, this is sure strong evidence that they were under control.
    Again, you're assuming.
    If they were non-technological "objects" then any apparent "evasion" could well have been perceptual errors.
    You're using an a priori assumption to argue a much-the-same conclusion.

    (Oh and stop misusing terminology - "locking on" wasn't a term that was used at the time (by the USAF at least) for one simple reason: it didn't happen because it wasn't necessary).
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 28th, 2014 at 05:21 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    The Tehran incident was very similar, except not only did the UFO's knock out communications and controls of fighter pilot Jafari's plane, but the electromagnetic pulse (that was presumed to have been used) also knocked out the control tower. This was in response to aircraft approaching it to take it down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Surely that also implies intelligence. A reaction to a threat. Just like the 1952 case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Oh sorry... absence of evidence. No, there is plenty evidence. There is an absence of proof.
    I'll try again: There is not plenty of evidence of the type necessary to support in any credible fashion the notion that LGMs are responsible.

    Little green men?


    Anyway... yes there is. Who in 1952 had the technology to fly at 7000 mph, when at least a decade later the X-15 plane appeared which could travel at the supersonic speed of a little over 4000 mph. This was America's fastest plane at the time.


    Once you can answer who had that technology, then you will offer evidence there is no evidence.
    Sigh. I guess you'll never get it, you're so blinded by your bias.

    If I was bias, I wouldn't have spent many years investigating it to retain an objective investigation. Before my investigations, I had two possibilities and those two possibilities for their origins are still there. Those are that either our government has been lying about this technology for many many years, or they are ET. Either way, you can decide for yourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post

    And talking about supersonic planes is kind of irrelevant here. It's just one more claim you need to back up with something with more substance than, "Because I said so."

    Why not talk about it?

    In 1952 several objects penetrated the air defence of America and out-flew our very best sent up ''there'' to intercept these objects. Not only where these objects ''seen by several fighter pilots'' but the radar evidence gave back the same location of the objects being seen.

    Reported, was that radar evidence showed that when the objects where seen to ''race off'' when being intercepted, that they moved at around 7000 mph.


    If you think talking about this is the problem, it isn't; people like you are the problem for thinking this 'evidence' is not important. It's very important: why? Simply because as I said before... we didn't have anything like that in our inventory.
    Sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I mean here is that you are not backing up your claims. You are saying that US airspace was penetrated by a thing. Great, but I don't see a link to where that is from. You say there is a radar readout that displays the thing. Citation please. Pilots saw them? Okay, where are their quotes?

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ne...ml%3B461%3B210



    and most quotes found here

    1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Still not backing up your claims...
    I don't think you understand how important it is to be able to "show" why your claims are true, and not just "say" they are.

    Edit: Oooh links. I stand corrected (on the first line, second is still up for debate). Lets see what we have, then.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I try to keep up with all questions posed. It's hard to answer everyone, not because I can't, but it's a lot to keep up when you have many posters to respond to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    The Tehran incident was very similar
    Really?
    Because it was "similar" the "cause" must have been the same?

    except not only did the UFO's knock out communications and controls of fighter pilot Jafari's plane, but the electromagnetic pulse (that was presumed to have been used) also knocked out the control tower. This was in response to aircraft approaching it to take it down.
    Allegedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Surely that also implies intelligence. A reaction to a threat. Just like the 1952 case.
    And again... assumption used to justify a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    If I was bias, I wouldn't have spent many years investigating it to retain an objective investigation.
    On the contrary, because of a bias you've spent years trying to justify that view.

    Before my investigations, I had two possibilities and those two possibilities for their origins are still there. Those are that either our government has been lying about this technology for many many years, or they are ET. Either way, you can decide for yourselves.
    Or, there's other explanations.
    Why do think there's only two possible explanations?
    How about: completely unrelated events taken as "similar", based on false perceptions, natural phenomena and post-event inflation.
    (Check out the Scandinavian "Ghost Rockets" just after WWII and their explanation for a typical case, and a fascinatingly mundane solution).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Interestingly, the spokesperson of blue book, confiscated radar evidence so the public couldn't get their hands on it.

    Reflects everything Hynek said, that it was their job not to get the public excited and to debunk as necessery... even though they truly couldn't be explained as he once said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    The Tehran incident was very similar
    Really?
    Because it was "similar" the "cause" must have been the same?

    except not only did the UFO's knock out communications and controls of fighter pilot Jafari's plane, but the electromagnetic pulse (that was presumed to have been used) also knocked out the control tower. This was in response to aircraft approaching it to take it down.
    Allegedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Surely that also implies intelligence. A reaction to a threat. Just like the 1952 case.
    And again... assumption used to justify a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    If I was bias, I wouldn't have spent many years investigating it to retain an objective investigation.
    On the contrary, because of a bias you've spent years trying to justify that view.

    Before my investigations, I had two possibilities and those two possibilities for their origins are still there. Those are that either our government has been lying about this technology for many many years, or they are ET. Either way, you can decide for yourselves.
    Or, there's other explanations.
    Why do think there's only two possible explanations?
    How about: completely unrelated events taken as "similar", based on false perceptions, natural phenomena and post-event inflation.
    (Check out the Scandinavian "Ghost Rockets" just after WWII and their explanation for a typical case, and a fascinatingly mundane solution).

    No, it seems very likely they are not natural phenomenon. Again, ruled out by obvious intelligent control
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No, it seems very likely they are not natural phenomenon.
    Based on what?

    Again, ruled out by obvious intelligent control
    Oh, based on your a priori and unproven assumption.
    Got it.

    So much for the scientific approach...
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No, it seems very likely they are not natural phenomenon.
    Based on what?

    Again, ruled out by obvious intelligent control
    Oh, based on your a priori and unproven assumption.
    Got it.

    So much for the scientific approach...

    I think it's proven now, they are either probes or driven. More likely probes and yes... there is a mountain of evidence of them displaying typical behaviour you would expect from intelligently controlled craft. I've given you two cases and you seem to have completely ignored what I have said concerning this evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I think it's proven now
    One more example of your delusion.
    You have NOT shown it to be "proven".
    You have, as previously stated, assumed that this so and then used that to bolster the rest of your arguments.

    they are either probes or driven.
    You haven't even shown that they are actually technological artefacts.

    More likely probes and yes... there is a mountain of evidence of them displaying typical behaviour you would expect from intelligently controlled craft. I've given you two cases and you seem to have completely ignored what I have said concerning this evidence.
    Because what you have said about your "evidence" is predicated on an unsupported assumption.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Because what you have said about your "evidence" is predicated on an unsupported assumption.

    So, all the quotes about the military saying the ships evaded them, this is all ... unsupported? I provided links for you to read. I told you about the Tehran case in which UFO's responded to a direct threat.


    You're largely ignoring everything I am saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    So, all the quotes about the military saying the ships evaded them, this is all ... unsupported?
    One more time:
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    If they were non-technological "objects" then any apparent "evasion" could well have been perceptual errors.
    I told you about the Tehran case in which UFO's responded to a direct threat.
    Yeah. And you bullshitted about that too.

    You're largely ignoring everything I am saying.
    No, I'm trying to get you to stop using a priori assumptions.
    You have already DECIDED that these "objects" are technological 1 and are basing your entire argument off that assumption.

    1 A question which you agreed was valid, yet your only "response" was to say that they must be technological since they're intelligently guided: an argument which is essentially circular. If they're not technological then it's unlikely they're guided and therefore another explanation should be investigated.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It's not ''perceptual errors'' again... radar has nothing to do with human perception. It's practically physical science. So are speed guns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It's only a bonus when humans can confirm what radar is telling them. There are many famous cases which in fact... have these bonuses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It's not ''perceptual errors'' again... radar has nothing to do with human perception.
    Except the supposed "evasions" weren't actually tracked on radar.
    (Clue: if the aircraft was (supposedly) close enough to start a firing solution then it and the "object" would have been seen a single blip on the tracking radar's scope)

    It's practically physical science. So are speed guns.
    Yeah, and I suppose you're also under the impression that everything that shows up on radar is A) actually there and B) a technological artefact.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    It's not ''perceptual errors'' again... radar has nothing to do with human perception.
    Except the supposed "evasions" weren't actually tracked on radar.

    Yes they were. They were confirmed not only by air radar, but also ground control tracked the evasion as the pilot reported at that instant the UFO shooted off. Later it was confirmed that the object traveled at 7000 mph.

    But I have said this loads of times now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Then they must be humans from the future.
    I've heard that theory as well. Jack Sarfatti actually believes UFO's are from the future.
    It's not a theory.
    It is an unevidenced claim - just like claiming they are aliens.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    This does imply they were under an intelligent control
    Then they must be humans from the future.
    I've heard that theory as well. Jack Sarfatti actually believes UFO's are from the future.
    It's not a theory.
    It is an unevidenced claim - just like claiming they are aliens.

    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yes they were. They were confirmed not only by air radar, but also ground control tracked the evasion as the pilot reported at that instant the UFO shooted off.
    Please quote the relevant part of whatever source you have to support this.

    Later it was confirmed that the object traveled at 7000 mph.
    Non sequitur.

    I note you completely ignored this:
    Yeah, and I suppose you're also under the impression that everything that shows up on radar is A) actually there and B) a technological artefact.
    Maybe because answering would confirm your pre-existing bias?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    How about we use this as a lesson in evaluating the credibility of your sources?

    First, newspaper headlines. You know how earlier on, I mentioned a kind of hierarchy for kinds of evidence? All newspaper articles fall into the category of "anecdotal evidence", which is right at the bottom of the ladder. The reason for this is that none of it is first hand. All of it is written by journalists (not scientists, or astronomers, or aeronautical engineers), and a lot of it is based on hearsay, chosen for the purpose of selling newspapers. That's not to say that newspapers publish outright lies all the time, but they are not reliable for determining much more than, "something happened" and telling you what the public opinion about it was.

    Now, Wikipedia. While it is generally a good place to get an overview of a topic, it's not reliable on its own. Thankfully, wikipedia demands that authors cite their sources, which are kept at the bottom of the page...
    Of the 5 books cited, 4 were written 45-50 years after the event and are published by popular press, meaning none of them are independently reviewed or verified. Their contents may be relevant, but you can't draw any conclusions without reading them first. Even then, the information within is all second hand and likely to fall into the "anecdotal" category. The fifth book, by Ruppelt, appears to be contemporary and it's even public domain and published online. From the quick skim I gave it, the section that speculates on what the objects may have been doesn't contain any mention of aliens or extra-terrestrials, so it doesn't support your position. And, once again, the contents of the book are likely to be anecdotal.

    Something missing from wikipedia's list of sources is any peer-reviewed, independently verified or verifiable material. That kind of material is valuable because it eliminates human bias and is not open to interpretation. As such, that kind of evidence lives much higher in the hierarchy than material from individual testimony and the popular press. Keep in mind that I am ~not~ saying that lower forms of evidence should be disregarded out of hand. Often, collections of anecdotal evidence give valuable insights into social trends. But they can't give you the kind of solid conclusions you seem fond of throwing around in these threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?


    I don't believe in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?


    I don't believe in time.
    Ever used that line on your boss?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yes they were. They were confirmed not only by air radar, but also ground control tracked the evasion as the pilot reported at that instant the UFO shooted off.
    Please quote the relevant part of whatever source you have to support this.

    Later it was confirmed that the object traveled at 7000 mph.
    Non sequitur.

    I note you completely ignored this:
    Yeah, and I suppose you're also under the impression that everything that shows up on radar is A) actually there and B) a technological artefact.
    Maybe because answering would confirm your pre-existing bias?

    sure:

    Meanwhile, Albert M. Chop, the press spokesman for Project Blue Book, arrived at National Airport and refused several reporters' requests to photograph the radar screens. He then joined the radar center personnel.[12] By this time (9:30 p.m.) the radar center was picking up unknown objects in every sector. At times the objects traveled slowly; at other times they reversed direction and moved across the radarscope at speeds calculated at 7,000 mph. At 11:30 p.m., two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar blips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts.[13]However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four lights then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared.[14]


    wiki extract
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    sure:
    Meanwhile, Albert M. Chop, the press spokesman for Project Blue Book, arrived at National Airport and refused several reporters' requests to photograph the radar screens. He then joined the radar center personnel.[12] By this time (9:30 p.m.) the radar center was picking up unknown objects in every sector. At times the objects traveled slowly; at other times they reversed direction and moved across the radarscope at speeds calculated at 7,000 mph. At 11:30 p.m., two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar blips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts.[13]However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four lights then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared.[14]
    wiki extract
    Yeah, not one word about the radar tracking "evasion" as the fighters lined up for shooting.
    The movement seen on radar was NOT the "evasion" reported by the pilots supposedly "in contact".
    Take a look at what that quote states:
    Picked up on radar.
    Fighters arrived.
    Fighter chases "glows".
    Fighter gets "surrounded".
    "Glows" depart.
    So, one more time, your claim that the "evasion" wasn't a perceptual error because of radar tracking isn't supported.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?


    I don't believe in time.
    Ever used that line on your boss?



    I don't work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    sure:
    Meanwhile, Albert M. Chop, the press spokesman for Project Blue Book, arrived at National Airport and refused several reporters' requests to photograph the radar screens. He then joined the radar center personnel.[12] By this time (9:30 p.m.) the radar center was picking up unknown objects in every sector. At times the objects traveled slowly; at other times they reversed direction and moved across the radarscope at speeds calculated at 7,000 mph. At 11:30 p.m., two jet fighters from Newcastle AFB in Delaware arrived over Washington. Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar blips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts.[13]However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four lights then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared.[14]
    wiki extract
    Yeah, not one word about the radar tracking "evasion" as the fighters lined up for shooting.
    The movement seen on radar was NOT the "evasion" reported by the pilots supposedly "in contact".
    Take a look at what that quote states:
    Picked up on radar.
    Fighters arrived.
    Fighter chases "glows".
    Fighter gets "surrounded".
    "Glows" depart.
    So, one more time, your claim that the "evasion" wasn't a perceptual error because of radar tracking isn't supported.


    Sorry, I made an error in that context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    I don't believe in time.
    Ok.
    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    I don't believe in time.
    Ok.
    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?


    There are timeless theories in physics which some top scientists are working on at the moment. The Chronological Protection Conjecture assumes time is real but... time travel forbidden to avoid paradoxes unless on microscopic scales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    I don't believe in time.
    Ok.
    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    There are timeless theories in physics which some top scientists are working on at the moment. The Chronological Protection Conjecture assumes time is real but... time travel forbidden to avoid paradoxes unless on microscopic scales.
    Ok.
    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    There is evidence, I wouldn't go as far to say they are time travelers.
    Of course you wouldn't say they are time travellers, because you want them to be aliens.

    Do you have any evidence that they are not time travellers?


    I don't believe in time.
    Ever used that line on your boss?



    I don't work.
    Neither does your logic.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I don't believe in time.
    That doesn't matter.
    Reality isn't dependant on your belief.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?
    the Russians sold to them by the Germans

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    My question was not rhetorical, it was a real question posed at you. I'm not being argumentative, I just want to know your opinion on who had this technology in 1952? If you say it is a based on ''hearsay''... then it clearly isn't. Radar evidence is not hearsay, thousands and thousands of people could have lied about it... but that's probably more unlikely than aliens visiting us!
    why would thousands upon thousands have to lie about it? all those people have top secret clearance in the soviet and German governments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?
    You have yet to show that those "UFOs" were indeed a "technology" and not some other explanation.

    That's probably the most intelligible question posed yet.
    It's been posed numerous times to you and in numerous wordings in a vain attempt/hope that you will eventually understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I had two possibilities and those two possibilities for their origins are still there. Those are that either our government has been lying about this technology for many many years, or they are ET. Either way, you can decide for yourselves.
    This or that fallacy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Absolutely fascinating stuff!

    The Polarized Vacuum “Onion Drive” Propulsion System | The Stargate Chronicles | By Clark C. McClelland | The Real X-Files


    Yes it's about UFO propulsion systems - I don't want to talk about UFO's, I've been doing it most my life. Instead, I have given this link purely about the physics behind it.

    Enjoy.
    What physics? I see none. It's from a UFO fantasy site (as you've acknowledged).

    This belongs in the Personal Theories section at best. No physics here, sorry.


    Do you know who Mccelland is? He's an astronaut with many science degree's and many awards. The Onion Drive is his creation. There is actually physics behind it. Here is a physicist who (talking about a different subject) goes onto talk about the Onion drive. He works in propulsion systems.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glAbRwv65NI
    If this person is an astronaut, what mission or missions did he take part in? I can find no trace of this individual. I think you may have been taken in by a fraudster.

    As for the physics, I have to agree with the others. It seems to be a superficial mishmash of technical terms that makes no real sense, combined with a rather eccentric (to put it politely) belief in an "aether".

    Such things tend to telegraph "CRANK", in flashing blue lights, to those of us with scientific training, of whom there are many on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Anyway... yes there is. Who in 1952 had the technology to fly at 7000 mph
    But ATC didn't have the radar technology to track airplanes that could fly at 7000 mph in 1952.

    So possible explanations:
    Aliens secretly upgraded our radar systems then flew over them to freak us out
    The story was misreported
    There was a radar glitch

    Which is more likely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    If this person is an astronaut, what mission or missions did he take part in? I can find no trace of this individual.
    That's because it was a secret space mission to a UFO that the government is hiding. Can you prove he DIDN'T take off on a secret US space mission to visit the LGM? I thought not.
    exchemist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Sorry, I made an error in that context.
    Yeah, you've made a number of errors, assumptions, unsupported assertions and half-assed uninformed guesses and untrue claims in this thread.
    And you still expect to be taken seriously.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You do know there are genuine stills of saucer shaped craft which have stood the test of time?

    This means being analyzed for being faked.
    No. I am not aware of photographs of confirmed alien vessels. I can only imagine this would have caused quite a stir.

    As was such the case, our best evidence always seems to get confiscated, like the Pitlockry UFO. All that remains of that now, is a crude photocopy. It was unanimous at the MoD among specialists that it was a real object in the sky, including the Harriers that were circling it. Because of this, Nick Pope, former agent of MoD working on the real X-files said, the photograph truly did cause stir. His boss indicated it might have been an American spy plane, but this doesn't answer a thing, like why for instance Harriers where in Scotland.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Sorry, I made an error in that context.
    Yeah, you've made a number of errors, assumptions, unsupported assertions and half-assed uninformed guesses and untrue claims in this thread.
    And you still expect to be taken seriously.
    No I haven't. In all the time I spoken to you, you have only pointed out two (confirmed) errors. Stop over exaggerating things, look how many posts I have made in only a few days... and you expect me to be pristine? As I told you before, occasionally I will make some errors, I am only human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    [QUOTE=exchemist;558806]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Absolutely fascinating stuff!

    The Polarized Vacuum “Onion Drive” Propulsion System | The Stargate Chronicles | By Clark C. McClelland | The Real X-Files


    Yes it's about UFO propulsion systems - I don't want to talk about UFO's, I've been doing it most my life. Instead, I have given this link purely about the physics behind it.

    Enjoy.
    What physics? I see none. It's from a UFO fantasy site (as you've acknowledged).

    This belongs in the Personal Theories section at best. No physics here, sorry.


    Do you know who Mccelland is?

    He's not an astronaut, he's an aerospace engineer, this was settled quite early on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Saying it is not evidence of aliens.... well... who had this technology?
    You have yet to show that those "UFOs" were indeed a "technology" and not some other explanation.

    That's probably the most intelligible question posed yet.
    It's been posed numerous times to you and in numerous wordings in a vain attempt/hope that you will eventually understand it.

    mmm... no... most posts before any serious conversations here started, where mostly directed to insult me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Anyway... yes there is. Who in 1952 had the technology to fly at 7000 mph
    But ATC didn't have the radar technology to track airplanes that could fly at 7000 mph in 1952.

    For an object to disappear off the radar like that, meant it had to be travelling at 7000 miles per hour, at least that is how I understood the event from reading it. Plus, the pilots can gauge how fast they could potentially move, from out maneuvering them at unmatchable speeds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I just had to look. This is standard ufonut woo.

    Reiku had a traumatic experience as an autistic adolescent, and it's screwed him up ever since.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    For an object to disappear off the radar like that, meant it had to be travelling at 7000 miles per hour


    Joe: Hey Dave, I just lost that intermittent return.
    Dave: It must have been an alien spacecraft moving at over 7000 mph to disappear like that!
    Joe: Or we blew a vacuum tube again.
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    but this doesn't answer a thing, like why for instance Harriers where in Scotland.
    What?
    Scotland is, though you're apparently unaware of it, part of the UK.
    The RAF operates and trains all over the UK.
    Lossiemouth and Leuchars have runways, i.e. they're RAF bases. Macrihanish was an RAF base (now Mod) with the longest runway in the Scotland.
    Tain is a bombing range where the RAF goes to practice firing weapons.
    In other words: why wouldn't Harriers be flying in Scotland?
    RedPanda and stonecutter like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    'without permission'

    Should have been added. The MoD tried to find out how those Harriers got there and they couldn't find out. Which meant that if they really were, someone authorized it and they cannot figure out who did... someone in high office no doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    For an object to disappear off the radar like that, meant it had to be travelling at 7000 miles per hour
    Joe: Hey Dave, I just lost that intermittent return.
    Dave: It must have been an alien spacecraft moving at over 7000 mph to disappear like that!
    Joe: Or we blew a vacuum tube again.

    I think they would know. Besides, the incredible speeds have been reported in different accounts of the same phenomenon. I don't just rely on the 1952, UFO's and their speeds have been tracked for decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No I haven't. In all the time I spoken to you, you have only pointed out two (confirmed) errors.
    Yeah?
    Let's see:
    You cannot fake radar - false.
    Well guess what, UFO's have been tracked on radar for about 80-100 years - as you admitted you made this up.
    but memorandums will confirm that UFO's have been showing up on radar ever since they where put in place - yet you failed to provide these "memoranda" and later stated "what is ''reported'' is not always released", in other words, you also made THAT up.
    it was sent to all top photographic professionals at the MOD. Turns out, after a few months of investigation by Nick Pope, that the consensus was that the photograph couldn't have been faked - doubly misleading. There was no "consensus" and Pope doesn't work for the MoD.
    Nicks own personal blow-up of the photographed UFO had been taken away by his boss - misleading (or a lie), as noted, Pope doesn't have a "boss" he's freelance.
    Because America has plenty tremendously large triangle objects that can speed off into the atmosphere in a second - also misleading, as pointed out the original explanation was "Harrier", in other words the "speeding off" was not regarded as particularly fast. Plus your deceitful addition of the word "tremendously".
    who had this technology? - your persistence that it's technology, supported ONLY by your (circular) argument that they're guided.
    but the electromagnetic pulse - this is your own invention.
    They [the evasions] were confirmed not only by air radar - as noted, you invented this and were caught out.

    And you mentioned your "book". I took a (mercifully) short look at a couple of posts. You've invented some of your own "facts" there, too.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    'without permission'
    Should have been added. The MoD tried to find out how those Harriers got there and they couldn't find out. Which meant that if they really were, someone authorized it and they cannot figure out who did... someone in high office no doubt.
    Source please.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No I haven't. In all the time I spoken to you, you have only pointed out two (confirmed) errors.
    Yeah?
    Let's see:
    You cannot fake radar - false.
    Well guess what, UFO's have been tracked on radar for about 80-100 years - as you admitted you made this up.
    but memorandums will confirm that UFO's have been showing up on radar ever since they where put in place - yet you failed to provide these "memoranda" and later stated "what is ''reported'' is not always released", in other words, you also made THAT up.
    it was sent to all top photographic professionals at the MOD. Turns out, after a few months of investigation by Nick Pope, that the consensus was that the photograph couldn't have been faked - doubly misleading. There was no "consensus" and Pope doesn't work for the MoD.
    Nicks own personal blow-up of the photographed UFO had been taken away by his boss - misleading (or a lie), as noted, Pope doesn't have a "boss" he's freelance.
    Because America has plenty tremendously large triangle objects that can speed off into the atmosphere in a second - also misleading, as pointed out the original explanation was "Harrier", in other words the "speeding off" was not regarded as particularly fast. Plus your deceitful addition of the word "tremendously".
    who had this technology? - your persistence that it's technology, supported ONLY by your (circular) argument that they're guided.
    but the electromagnetic pulse - this is your own invention.
    They [the evasions] were confirmed not only by air radar - as noted, you invented this and were caught out.

    And you mentioned your "book". I took a (mercifully) short look at a couple of posts. You've invented some of your own "facts" there, too.


    wtf are you talking about talking about getting your facts wrong...


    Nick pope is not ''freelance'' he used to to work for the MoD in a specialized dep. in the investigation of UFO's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    ''doubly misleading. There was no "consensus" and Pope doesn't work for the MoD.''




    ERRRR YES THERE WAS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I speak to Nick occasionally. I know exactly what he said to me about it. Watch this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhTk0lVSyc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Dwddyr... in the future don't just lie about what you think you know the facts are. You clearly don't know a thing about Nick, or the fact he worked at the MoD or that specialists determined the photograph was real... only then for it to go missing.

    I thought you were trying to show me up for mistakes, truth is you don't have the first damn clue yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Four posts in a row, about a minute apart. Compulsive?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Dwddyr... in the future don't just lie about what you think you know the facts are. You clearly don't know a thing about Nick, or the fact he worked at the MoD or that specialists determined the photograph was real... only then for it to go missing.
    Wrong again.
    Take another look at what I've already posted about Pope:
    Pope left government employ in 2006 (and actually ceased any connection with "UFOs" in his official capacity in '94).
    Now, WHICH "top MoD specialists" determined the photo was real? What's your source?
    If the photo "went missing" why do you think it was "his boss" that took it?

    Nick pope is not ''freelance''
    Really?
    Maybe you'd better tell HIM.
    He now works as a freelance journalist and media commentator.
    Straight from his own f*cking biography on his own f*cking web page.
    Accuse me again of lying you ignorant dick head.

    he used to to work for the MoD in a specialized dep. in the investigation of UFO's.
    No he didn't.
    He worked for the Secretariat (Air Staff) where his duties included researching and investigating the UFO phenomenon - those investigations were a small part of his duties: it wasn't a "specialised department" at all.

    truth is you don't have the first damn clue yourself.
    Wrong again.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Dwddyr... in the future don't just lie about what you think you know the facts are. You clearly don't know a thing about Nick, or the fact he worked at the MoD or that specialists determined the photograph was real... only then for it to go missing.
    Wrong again.
    Take another look at what I've already posted about Pope:
    Pope left government employ in 2006 (and actually ceased any connection with "UFOs" in his official capacity in '94).

    That's common knowledge. He did leave employment but this has never been part of the discussion. You said he never worked for the MoD, I said... yes he did. These events were obviously WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE.


    It's a given. Then you argued there was no consensus... actually there was and Nick affirms this in the video I linked you to. Nick is a good man with good intentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    You said he never worked for the MoD
    Outright lie. Please link to the post where I said this.
    (Rather difficult for you, since I've already given a quote where I noted out that he did).

    These events were obviously WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE.
    I have also already pointed out (same post) that the Pitlochry (note the correct spelling) UFO case happened in 2009 - THREE YEARS AFTER he resigned.

    It's a given. Then you argued there was no consensus.
    From whom?

    Nick is a good man with good intentions.
    Nick Pope is a raving loon.

    So, no apology for getting it wrong about him being freelance?
    No apology for calling me a liar?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    ''Pope, that the consensus was that the photograph couldn't have been faked - doubly misleading. There was no "consensus" and Pope doesn't work for the MoD.''



    This implies he never worked for the MoD, or if not, why mention it? If you knew he had worked there, why contradict what I said that he worked at the MoD?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    What a silly argument... I'm terminating this now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    What a silly argument... I'm terminating this now.
    Right.
    Because you've lied, and made accusations you can't support.
    You're dishonest little shit.
    Pope, that the consensus was that the photograph couldn't have been faked - doubly misleading. There was no "consensus" and Pope doesn't work for the MoD.''
    This implies he never worked for the MoD, or if not, why mention it? If you knew he had worked there, why contradict what I said that he worked at the MoD?
    Note the tenses: Pope doesn't work for the MoD.
    It does NOT imply that he never did.
    Especially since I had previously stated (as noted) that: Pope left government employ in 2006.
    I.e. an EXPLICIT statement that he HAD worked for the Mod.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Whether he doesn't or doesn't is clearly irrelevant. If I made a statement about something that happened to Nick at the MoD, tell me why even say he doesn't work there?


    Can't you understand the most basics of simplifying the meaning of things that you couldn't eliminate that this must have been during the years he worked there?

    You're trolling the fuck out of me and I am not playing your games any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    He's not an astronaut, he's an aerospace engineer, this was settled quite early on.
    YOU said he was an astronaut, a little higher up this thread, here in fact: http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseud...ost557628.html

    You might at least have the courtesy to acknowledge your error, then.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    He's not an astronaut, he's an aerospace engineer, this was settled quite early on.
    YOU said he was an astronaut, a little higher up this thread, here in fact: http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseud...ost557628.html

    You might at least have the courtesy to acknowledge your error, then.

    I did early on. I said I made a technical error to another poster, a lot earlier, read back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Whether he doesn't or doesn't is clearly irrelevant.
    It is interesting how things you consider to be relevant become clearly irrelevant once you realize they are incorrect.
    RedPanda and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Whether he doesn't or doesn't is clearly irrelevant. If I made a statement about something that happened to Nick at the MoD, tell me why even say he doesn't work there?
    One more time: Pitlochry (note the correct spelling) UFO case happened in 2009 - THREE YEARS AFTER he resigned.

    Can't you understand the most basics of simplifying the meaning of things that you couldn't eliminate that this must have been during the years he worked there?
    What?
    He didn't work there AT THE TIME.

    You're trolling the fuck out of me and I am not playing your games any more.
    You mean I keep pointing out your lies?
    Cogito Ergo Sum and grmpysmrf like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I'll ask him myself. He's usually quick replying to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I've posed the question to him:

    Hi Nick, an important question friend. I was explaining the Pitlochry case to someone on the internet, and I told them your superior took the photograph down and they went missing. This poster is contradicting me saying that you only worked at the MoD till 2006 and the Pitlochry event happened in 2009, is this correct? So the question is, how did your superior do this? There must be something technically wrong here with the dates or something? Thanks nick.



    Wait now till he gets back, he's usually quite quick with me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I'll ask him myself. He's usually quick replying to me.
    So, no apologies for lying, or accusing me of lying?
    No apologies for claiming things as true that you NOW have to go ask about because you were wrong?

    I've posed the question to him:
    Hi Nick, an important question friend. I was explaining the Pitlochry case to someone on the internet, and I told them your superior took the photograph down and they went missing. This poster is contradicting me saying that you only worked at the MoD till 2006 and the Pitlochry event happened in 2009, is this correct? So the question is, how did your superior do this? There must be something technically wrong here with the dates or something? Thanks nick.
    Wait now till he gets back, he's usually quite quick with me.
    Right.
    It's only taken you a day and a half and multiple repetitions to get you to think about the discrepancies.
    What do you do for brains?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    The pitlochry ufo files date back to 1990. There is why you are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    4th of August, to be precise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    The pitlochry ufo files date back to 1990. There is why you are wrong.
    Really?
    Then you're going to have to provide a specific link. (Don't bother, I found one now you've finally given relevant information).
    I've found a "Pitlcohry UFO" dated 2009 and another dated 2012.
    And, since I made it absolutely clear (as noted by the date I gave) that I was talking about the 2009 "event" - something you either failed to read or failed to understand and correct, so it's hardly my fault.
    We're apparently talking about two different cases - your fault since you failed to provide any links.
    (And STILL no apologies for lying or accusing me of doing so).
    Presumably then, YOU are talking about the CALVINE case.
    Another example of your sloppiness and inattention to important detail.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 28th, 2014 at 06:21 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddr
    Pitlochry (note the correct spelling) UFO case happened in 2009...
    It "looks" like there are 2 Pitlochry sightings.
    I say "looks" because, as far as I can tell, the only source of the first Pitlochry sighting is Nick Pope himself.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    [QUOTE=RedPanda;559045]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    One more time: Pitlochry (note the correct spelling) UFO case happened in 2009...[/QUOTE]
    It "looks" like there are 2 Pitlochry sightings.
    I say "looks" because, as far as I can tell, the only source of the first Pitlochry sighting is Nick Pope himself.

    That's exactly it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    I'll let him off, it could be a mistake anyone could make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    That's exactly it.
    Does it not seem strange to you, that the only source of any evidence regarding the 1990 sighting is Nick Pope?
    And that the only evidence he has is anecdotal?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    That's exactly it.
    Does it not seem strange to you, that the only source of any evidence regarding the 1990 sighting is Nick Pope?

    Nicks not the only one. It's actually filed in the MoD, it's only the photographs that went missing, including censoring the sighters names.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. EM drive?
    By quantum_ripple in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 19th, 2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Alcubierre Drive
    By Kerling in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2012, 08:39 PM
  3. Warp Drive
    By Quantime in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 9th, 2009, 02:35 AM
  4. Should there be "mixed onion oil" capsules?
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 17th, 2007, 12:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •