We are not alone.... Maybe.

[Unknown user]

20 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Is the American Government at it then? when they've admitted that there's objects in their sky that they can't explain?

And the pilots that seen them with their own eyes? and witnessed them doing maneuvers 'out of this world' Also at it?

 

This is an argument no one's making, I don't doubt there's tons of stuff they can't explain.

 

I can't tell you what caused them all, but I can tell you what didn't.

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

This is an argument no one's making, I don't doubt there's tons of stuff they can't explain.

 

I can't tell you what caused them all, but I can tell you what didn't.

 

People love a good story, and a good story will always impress more than a boring truth.  The sad reality is that most of us don't even have the mathematical know-how or the scientific understanding to get our heads around just how big the universe is, just how long evolutionary timescales are, and just how long, how variable and how unpredictable the development of scientific and technological capacity is, and therefore just how small a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the faintest hint of a smidgen of a possibility there could ever be that any two different planetary civilisations would find themselves in the same region of space at the same point in time.

 

Most of us don't have the mathematical or scientific know-how - but at least some of us have a basic awareness that helps get a sense of those things.  And then, a smaller subset of people actually do know this stuff, and know it really well.  They've read hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject, and they've gone on to write hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject, following painstaking study, research and analysis that takes years to develop, sometimes a whole sodding lifetime, while at the same time the things they write are subject to intense review, scrutiny and retesting by loads of other people who are every bit as knowledgeable and learned as they are.

 

So people will have to pardon me if I think they're talking sense, and if I also don't value the so-called "scientific opinion" of someone whose only scientific qualification was got without exams at the University of YouTube.

 

There's a reason why scientists, engineers and doctors have to go to school for a very long time.

[Gizmo]

45 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

I would post videos of the military pilots and the radar operators that have backed them up, but you wouldn't even watch them. 

Seen them. 

"Out of this world" maneveurs rather suggest unmanned craft, if it's not natural phenomenon, since G forces are G forces. 

I don't have a problem with their being stuff we can't fully debunk or explain (thought much of it has been debunked by experts in the field) - but I do have a problem with going from

unknown > aliens. 

I've said it a few times but if you were advanced enough a civilization to create warp bubbles or wormholes or some technology to circumvent the universal limit and essentially travel faster than light, why would you routinely and repeatedly waste all that energy and know-how to buzz the atmosphere of a less advanced species. It would be like us riverdancing above ants to impress them - a colossal waste of energy to achieve nothing. 

That level of technology, should an alien species wish to monitor our development, would surely allow them to do so completely undetected. 

[Greedy Jambo]

42 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

This is an argument no one's making, I don't doubt there's tons of stuff they can't explain.

 

I can't tell you what caused them all, but I can tell you what didn't.

 

Without going into 7 or 8 paragraphs (nobody can be arsed with those bad boys) it's pretty obvious that you can't tell what they are, since you've done feckall research on it, and to be fair, you can't rule out aliens either, prove it's not aliens, big boy. 

[Unknown user]

19 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Without going into 7 or 8 paragraphs (nobody can be arsed with those bad boys) it's pretty obvious that you can't tell what they are, since you've done feckall research on it, and to be fair, you can't rule out aliens either, prove it's not aliens, big boy.

 

prove it's not aliens, big boy

[Greedy Jambo]

51 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

prove it's not aliens, big boy

 

Until we get a definitive answer, as to what these things are, anything goes.

And that's the bottom line, because Stone Cold said so. 

 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Without going into 7 or 8 paragraphs (nobody can be arsed with those bad boys) it's pretty obvious that you can't tell what they are, since you've done feckall research on it, and to be fair, you can't rule out aliens either, prove it's not aliens, big boy. 

You're the one saying it's Alien. You prove it.

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Until we get a definitive answer, as to what these things are, anything goes.

And that's the bottom line, because Stone Cold said so. 

 

It still isn't aliens

[Boab]

Same as God really.

A lot of people believe and should be respected for their beliefs.

But like saucers....I kinda think it's nonsense and a product, like religion, of our incredible brains. 

We are a pretty amazing species !

I'm happy to gape at James Watt pictures. Almost spiritual ! 😲

[SUTOL]

17 minutes ago, Boab said:

Same as God really.

A lot of people believe and should be respected for their beliefs.

But like saucers....I kinda think it's nonsense and a product, like religion, of our incredible brains. 

We are a pretty amazing species !

I'm happy to gape at James Watt pictures. Almost spiritual ! 😲

 

 

Each to their own and all that but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boab]

26 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

 

Each to their own and all that but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could have put James Watt's telescope but that would have got me in deeper trouble !

[maroonlegions]

20 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

People love a good story, and a good story will always impress more than a boring truth.  The sad reality is that most of us don't even have the mathematical know-how or the scientific understanding to get our heads around just how big the universe is, just how long evolutionary timescales are, and just how long, how variable and how unpredictable the development of scientific and technological capacity is, and therefore just how small a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the faintest hint of a smidgen of a possibility there could ever be that any two different planetary civilisations would find themselves in the same region of space at the same point in time.

 

Most of us don't have the mathematical or scientific know-how - but at least some of us have a basic awareness that helps get a sense of those things.  And then, a smaller subset of people actually do know this stuff, and know it really well.  They've read hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject, and they've gone on to write hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject, following painstaking study, research and analysis that takes years to develop, sometimes a whole sodding lifetime, while at the same time the things they write are subject to intense review, scrutiny and retesting by loads of other people who are every bit as knowledgeable and learned as they are.

 

So people will have to pardon me if I think they're talking sense, and if I also don't value the so-called "scientific opinion" of someone whose only scientific qualification was got without exams at the University of YouTube.

 

There's a reason why scientists, engineers and doctors have to go to school for a very long time.

So  in your ignorance of yet again not looking at ALL the available evidence your bias has  is all over your above post..

 

Love a good story??  are you paying attention to the detail in this story below and the others i have posted??

 

These are more that just a story??

 

I see you have included a wee sneaky comment that only those who agree on a ET hypothesis POSSIBILITY for the cases like the one i will include below are U/Tube educated .. Why do you do that, its running very thin and ots like you are kicking your empty can further down the road..

 

You or no scientist have no idea if there  are indeed very advanced ET civilisations  having the teck or interest to have visited here.

You dont have to go to university fir a very long time to see that point??

 

 Can you explain this case below??  

 

For it bamboozled the US Air Force intelligences , who have been at Uni to know and recognise whats entering and leaving its air space.  

 

 

For the record there ARE scientists and engineers who are of the opinion after looking at ot being a part of UAP  investigations.. To say there are none, as you are implying  is just not true. 

 

 

Below is just ONE  UAP case of such magnitude and high strangeness that to this day its a stand out ,and proves that  a very sophisticated and very advanced UAP took the piss out of a military fighter jet..   

 

Pay real attention to the parts of "lock on" and evasions.

 

 If the military experts are admitting that this UAP was beyond the teck available or understood by them , then when will you start really listening..????  

 

 

Very interesting testimony from Peruvian Air Force Commander Oscar Alfonso Huertas who describes an encounter with an unidentified object whilst flying his Sukhoi S-22 jet over La Joya Military Base in 1980 - he states he was ordered to open fire on the object and shot 64 explosive shells at it with little or no effect - he then goes on to give a description of the object and explain how it performed evasive maneuvers.


 

Peruvian Air Force Commander Oscar Alfonso Huertas

 

 

Comandante Huerta's full statement follows:


"I am Oscar Santa Maria Huerta, official pilot of the Peruvian Air Force, currently retired.

On April 11, 1980, at 7:15 in the morning, 1800 men were in formation at the Air Base of La Joya, Arequipa.

They all observed a stationary object in the sky, which looked like a balloon, at about three miles distance, and approximately 1,800 feet altitude. It was luminous because it reflected the sun.

My unit commander ordered me to takeoff in my Sukhoi 22 jet to shoot down the spherical object. It was in restricted airspace, without clearance, and we were concerned about espionage.

I approached the object and strafed sixty-four 30 mm. shells at it. Some projectiles went towards the ground, and others hit the object fully, but they had no effect at all. The projectiles didn't bounce off; probably they were absorbed. The cone-shaped "wall of fire" that I sent out would normally obliterate anything in its path.

The object then began to ascend, and move farther away from the base. When I was at about 36,000 ft., it made a sudden stop, forcing me to veer to the side since I was only 1500 feet away. I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target and was ready to shoot, the object made a straight vertical climb evading the attack.

Two more times, I had the object on target, when the object was stationary. Each time, it moved away at the very last minute, when I was just about to fire, always eluding my attack.

I decided to climb at full thrust to get above the object, bit began to ascend almost parallel to my plane, and when I reached 63,000 ft., it stopped.

At this point, I came within about 300 feet of the UFO. It was about 30 feet in diameter. It was an enameled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular, metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no visible propulsion system.

It was at that moment that I realized that this was no spying device, but that it was a UFO, something totally unknown. I was almost out of fuel, so I couldn't attack or maneuver my plane, or make a high speed escape. I was afraid. I thought I might be finished.

When I had calmed down, I radioed for another plane to come and have a look, trying to hide my fear. They said no, it's too high, just come back. I had to glide part way down due to lack of fuel, zigzagging to make my plane harder to hit, always with my eyes on the rearview mirrors, hoping it wouldn't chase me. It didn't.

I spent 22 minutes maneuvering with this object. After I landed, the object remained stationary in the sky for two more hours, for everyone at the base to see.

A US Department of Defense document titled 'UFO Sighted in Peru' described the incident, stating that the vehicle's origin remains unknown.

It still gives me chills to think about it."

 

 

As for the Peruvian incident - it states in the Joint Chiefs of Staff document that the object also came back at night and outmanoeuvred an aircraft once again:

 

SOURCE STATED THAT ON 9 MAY, WHILE A GROUP OF FAP OFFICERS WERE IN FORMATION AT MARIANO MALGAR, THEY SPOTTED A UFO THAT WAS ROUND IN SHAPE, HOVERING NEAR THE AIRFIELD. THE AIR COMMANDER SCRAMBLED AN SU-22 AIRCRAFT TO MAKE AN INTERCEPT. THE PILOT, ACCORDING TO A THIRD PARTY, INTERCEPTED THE VEHICLE AND FIRED UPON IT AT VERY CLOSE RANGE WITHOUT CAUSING ANY APPARENT DAMAGE. THE PILOT TRIED TO MAKE A SECOND PASS ON THE VEHICLE, BUT THE UFO OUT-RAN THE SU-22.

THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS. THE VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.

 

    

 

  If you look through the cases there are pilot incidents which involve (sometimes multiple) radar confirmation and/or electromagnetic interference effects - there are also cases where unknown objects have been witnessed by more than one aircraft and/or people on the ground.

 

 When you get "electromagnetic interference effects recorded by  civilian pilots and military pilots then we have proof that some of these UAPs are under intelligent control and advanced design..   

 

 No one on here , even you can dispute that and none are in any position of credibility or university educated to refute those l kind of cases, there are 100s.  And nothing to do with being a U tube educated loony.. LOL>

Here are some interesting scientific reports on pilot UFO incidents - there are quite a few other credible reports here.


56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects

Edited March 29, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Ulysses]

Garble warble fibble wibble.

 

Bet you can't prove that's false.

 

[Greedy Jambo]

I think the typical skinny no muscle alien is what we're going to be like in a thousand years. 

Machines/robots will soon do everything we need, we'll do less and less until we don't use our muscles anymore. 

It wouldn't surprise me if the UAPs in our skies are highly advanced drones sent from else where. 

[Ulysses]

18 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

I think the typical skinny no muscle alien is what we're going to be like in a thousand years. 

Machines/robots will soon do everything we need, we'll do less and less until we don't use our muscles anymore. 

It wouldn't surprise me if the UAPs in our skies are highly advanced drones sent from else where. 

 

Whenever we catch fish, they think they've been abducted by aliens.

 

Can you prove that's not true?

[Greedy Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Whenever we catch fish, they think they've been abducted by aliens.

 

Can you prove that's not true?

 

You can't compare us to a fish ffs, when was the last time you seen a fish ordering a takeaway with it's mobile phone. 

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

You can't compare us to a fish ffs, when was the last time you seen a fish ordering a takeaway with it's mobile phone. 

 

Fair comment that. 

[maroonlegions]

I stand corrected on this photo that i included in my UAP photo list.

 

 

Is This the Oldest Known UFO Photo? One NH Researcher Finds Out

Ryan Mullahy, a UFO writer and researcher, set out to either verify or discredit the photo.

July 17, 2014 

 Site Staff

If you look closely at this old stereoscopic image, you can see a dark, cigar-shaped object that seems to be flying in the clouds over Mount Washington.

 

Wherever the image might have been over the years, it showed up on eBay one day in 2002. It was bought for $385, and soon after cropped to show a close-up of the cigar-shaped object and touted as "the oldest known UFO photo."

 

The owner, Samuel M. Sherman, said the photo would be submitted to scientists for detailed analysis, and the results made available to the public.

 

The photo hit the Internet like lightning, crackling from one UFO site to the next. Ryan Mullahy, a UFO writer, researcher and founder of the website NH UFO Research, saw it but wasn't convinced: "As fascinated as I was by the photo, I didn't think it was a UFO." Mullahy set out to determine whether it was.

 

He says he does "real, classic research" on UFO reports to establish their authenticity so people can take the incidents seriously: "I don't have a bias to prove a case true or not. I simply seek out information and put out what I find."

 

When he started his research on the "oldest known UFO photo," the only image available was a heavily cropped, low-resolution version on the Internet.

 

After six years of off-and-on digging, he found an important clue: a 2003 Weirs Times newspaper article unearthed by Kathy Brisendine, another UFO researcher. The article identified the photographers of the stereoscopic image as Amos Clough and Howard Kimball. The image had been taken in the winter of 1870-71 during a meteorological expedition, which he would learn later included a study of frost architecture.

 

Mullahy googled the expedition and discovered that the New York Public Library had a copy of the original high-resolution, uncropped photo (see above) in its digital library, along with a number of photos from the same set. After examining them closely, he decided his initial reaction was right:

 

"The object in the photo is not in the cloud, but on the surface of the mountain itself. In the original photo, there is a clear distinction between the surface of the mountain and the sky above the mountain range.

 

The brown object is lying on, or suspended in, the snow on the mountaintop." He says it could be a wooden ruler used to measure the snow or to show scale, but definitely is not a UFO.

 

"I don't claim to have cracked the case myself," Mullahy says. "Others found little pieces of the puzzle too." But, because he takes his UFOs seriously, "I'm happy to get rid of a case that clearly was not credible so we can provide a clear picture of what the actual history is."

 

 

 

Yes , but, but , but , there were hot air balloons.

 

Still there are in that list genuine UAP photos that have not been tampered with or appear to show models , or objects photo after being thrown up in the air due to measurements of the surrounding areas in the photos the UAP was taken in..   

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Greedy Jambo]

Craig Charles turning up late to the party. 

 

 

[graygo]

Looking forward to hearing about loads of UFO sightings tomorrow.

 

[cheetah]

[maroonlegions]

Some more info on the UAP photos i posted on this thread.. With those that take the banter line are all out to see how they can impress the level of their banter, the fact remains there ARE UAP photos that to this day still remain unknowns.

 

 

 And why should the ET hypothesis be dismissed??  When all other avenues are exhausted?? 

 

There is a very credible UFO/UAP website that was set up years ago to investigate  such photos with credible  investigators too..

 

Take this photo below , taken in 1932, no CGI, no photo manipulation teck....

 

This was not a smudge on the lense of the camera, it was not a object thrown up in the sky, in fact it has stood up to all possible avenues of a mundane explanation....    

 

There are plenty more on the ,links i will provide from this website, and not a u tube loony in sight. Of course the credibility of those that scrutinised this photo and others from the links will be IGNORED ....

 

  

 

 

http://www.nicap.org/images/ufo170.jpg
05-??-1932 USA,St. Paris,Ohio,?

This picture of George Sutton of St. Paris, Ohio was taken near midday on a summer noon.  We can see that it was in 1932 from the license plate on the automobile in the photo that accompanied this shot.

http://www.nicap.org/images/ufo171.jpg
05-??-1932 USA.St. Paris,Ohio,?

The unidentified flying object in the picture could not have been a street lamp, simply because there were no street lamps at the time.  There are no power poles or power lines visible anywhere in this picture. 

This picture of George Sutton of  St.  Paris, Ohio, taken near midday shows a vintage automobile with a 1932 license plate on the front bumper. 

 

The owner of the photo album says there were no electric street lights along this road in those days.  Nobody has been able to account for the dark object seen over Sutton's left shoulder in this photograph.

 

 

The next set of photos are below, again with source links and link to actual documents of this UAP case.

 

 

 

 

 

The Lubbock Lights / Carl Hart Photos
August 25, 1951
Lubbock, Texas

 

  IMCAT Case Directory
  Category 08, Photographic / Video Images 
 

Listed as item 11 under photographic evidence in the Special Evidence section of NICAP's UFO Evidence, is the Lubbock Texas Lights.  These photographs by Carl Hart, Jr., show a V-formation of large circular objects. Capt. Ruppelt, head of Air Force Project Blue Book, reported that "In each photograph the individual lights in the formation shifted position according to a definite pattern." Main photograph reproduced in True, May 1954.   Skeptics have always had a field day with this one because it seemed to be only a set of photographs, taken by a young, inexperienced photographer, of geese, later explained as moths.   Little did anyone know that even the Air Force, including the professors who also witnessed the overflights, did not buy the explanations.   In fact, it appears some people, alerted to UFO activity, saw birds; others saw UFOs. And the most damning evidence against birds, a professional photographer, with professional equipment and better film, could not capture lighted bellies of geese. And that's not all. A swept-back winged object was being seen around the country during the period and two radars confirmed an unknown.   Captain Edward Ruppelt: HEAD OF PROJECT BLUE BOOK:   Below is his final conclusions.. This was from a man who headed the USAF UFO/UAP investigations..   "This target was real. I quickly took out a map of the United States and drew in a course line between Lubbock and the radar station. A UFO flying between these two points would be on a northwesterly heading and the times it was seen at the two places gave it a speed of roughly 900 miles per hour. This was by far the best combination of UFO reports I'd ever read and I'd read every one in the Air Force's files."   Photos that to this day and at the time was stamped UNKNOWNS by the USAF .   http://www.nicap.org/docs/lubbock/lubbocklights3.jpg       Detailed reports and documents The Lubbock Lights: Introduction (Fran Ridge) The Lubbock Lights: The Detailed Story (Michael Hall & Wendy Connors) New Findings On The Lubbock Lights (Donald R. Burleson; IUR Summer 2001) Chapter 8, Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Edward J. Ruppelt) The Lubbock Lights, The BB Records (Dan Wilson) UFO Intelligence Summary - Subject: Lubbock Lights (Fran Ridge) The Blue Book Files on Lubbock (Fran Ridge) The Air Force Analysis Test Report No. WCEFP-2-4, Physics Branchis The Current Encounters Thread

 

NICAP Home Page

 

 

1932 UAP photos.

Edited April 4, 2022 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

Another avenue , outwith photos of UAPs, is that of the investigation of any UAPs "flight characteristics", that is the manor of its flight and the tell tale signs  that indicate that some UAPs show signs of "intelligent control"..

 

Yes we have drones now bit there are 100s of cases that outdate drones.

 

Take these cases that show beyond doubt that there was UAPs that had "flight characteristics" of intelligent control..

 

Below are some cases and the credibility and expertise in their fields that investigated them.. 

 

 

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous;

 

Unidentified Aerial Vehicles;

Kevin H. Knuth 1,2,* , Robert M. Powell 2 and Peter A. Reali 2;

 

1 Department of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany, NY 12222, USA;

2 Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), Fort Myers, FL 33913, USA;

[email protected] (R.M.P.); [email protected] (P.A.R.)

 

Abstract: Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics..

 

We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100 g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising.

 

The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft.

 

The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel, i.e., if these observed  accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time.

 

with UAVs [6,7]. These unidentified craft typically exhibit anomalous flight characteristics, such as traveling at extremely high speeds, changing direction or accelerating at extremely high rates, and hovering motionless for long periods of time. Furthermore, these craft appear to violate the laws of physics in that they do not have flight or control surfaces, any visible means of propulsion apparently violating Newton’s Third Law, and can operate in multiple media, such as space (low Earth orbit), air,and water without apparent hindrance, sonic booms, or heat dumps [4].

 

 

LInk ;

 

 

 "Is there supporting evidence for the existence of advanced aerial technology in our atmosphere which exhibits characteristics
 beyond those of which we humans (Military, Scientists, et al) were capable of at the time of the incidents' occurrence?" (Michael Swords)

A must-read paper: Estimating Flight Characteristics of UAP - entropy-21-00939-v2.pdf

 

[Ulysses]

On 24/03/2022 at 14:26, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm not trying to be a smart arse.  For years I've wanted to see one clear picture, from a reliable source, of a flying object that has no earthly explanation.  With the proliferation of good quality cameras in the world, and the numerous "sightings" by reputable people, one would think that would be easy.

 

the post by maroonlegions stated that they exist.  I'm genuinely hoping that he can produce one.

 

At what point do you throw in the towel and say to yourself "well, this ain't happening ever"?

[Tazio]

Photos have been manipulated since the very first ones were taken. 
And that is a definite fact, not an opinion based one. 

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

At what point do you throw in the towel and say to yourself "well, this ain't happening ever"?

 

About a week ago.  

[ri Alban]

[maroonlegions]

18 hours ago, Tazio said:

Photos have been manipulated since the very first ones were taken. 
And that is a definite fact, not an opinion based one. 

Then prove it.

 

Show what photos have been manipulated.

 

In fact offer some  of your own  layman's scientific  proof  that can stand up to those photos that have been given the green light of NON  interference.. Today we have all kinds of sophisticated CGI and photoshopped manipulation that can manipulate photos of anything.

 

The FACT is that way back in the 1930s/ 40s and 50s it was much harder to do.

 

Don't think for a minute that there are NOT such photos that have been credibly   investigated and show NO signs of manipulation, that is also a FACT..

 

So what of those photos, you are in no position to refute them..

 

In FACT i would take such photos  as genuine , your bias opinion offers nothing , rather than actually looking  at the methods used to determine the differences between genuine non manipulated photos you use your opinion???

 

 

Below are individuals, unlike you or me or anyone on here , who had the credentials and methods to determine when a photo was manipulated..  The statements below from them are FACTS . And since you are citing the term FACT , offer proof that the individuals below, along with their professions that led to their statements are in any way inferior to your opinions..

 

Why would i even entertain your FACTUAL argument when you are in no way qualified to refute such individuals below???   

 

When will those like you, chuck in the towel ,and admit, that it just ain't happening ,when personal bias of opinion is above those that have the credentials  and have  so much more credibility???    

 

  

Appropriate statements:
 

"I feel that the Air Force has misled us for twenty years.I equate almost all of that misrepresentation to incompetence and superficiality on the part of the Air Frce investigators involved with Project bluebook and its forerunners.Nobody there with any strong scientific competence s looking into the problem ."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona






"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969






"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963






"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).






"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966


 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

        

Edited April 5, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Jeffros Furios]

6 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Then prove it.

 

Show what photos have been manipulated.

 

In fact offer some  of your own  layman's scientific  proof  that can stand up to those photos that have been given the green light of NON  interference.. Today we have all kinds of sophisticated CGI and photoshopped manipulation that can manipulate photos of anything.

 

The FACT is that way back in the 1930s/ 40s and 50s it was much harder to do.

 

Don't think for a minute that there are NOT such photos that have been credibly   investigated and show NO signs of manipulation, that is also a FACT..

 

So what of those photos, you are in no position to refute them..

 

In FACT i would take such photos  as genuine , your bias opinion offers nothing , rather than actually looking  at the methods used to determine the differences between genuine non manipulated photos you use your opinion???

 

 

Below are individuals, unlike you or me or anyone on here , who had the credentials and methods to determine when a photo was manipulated..  The statements below from them are FACTS . And since you are citing the term FACT , offer proof that the individuals below, along with their professions that led to their statements are in any way inferior to your opinions..

 

Why would i even entertain your FACTUAL argument when you are in no way qualified to refute such individuals below???   

 

When will those like you, chuck in the towel ,and admit, that it just ain't happening ,when personal bias of opinion is above those that have the credentials  and have  so much more credibility???    

 

  

Appropriate statements:
 

"I feel that the Air Force has misled us for twenty years.I equate almost all of that misrepresentation to incompetence and superficiality on the part of the Air Frce investigators involved with Project bluebook and its forerunners.Nobody there with any strong scientific competence s looking into the problem ."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona






"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969






"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963






"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).






"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966


 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

        

FAKE NEWS 

[maroonlegions]

15 hours ago, ri Alban said:

 

 

There's some very interesting reading in the article below about the role of the Office of Naval Intelligence in the UFO subject - it also makes mention of Donald Menzel's association with the organization, speculates about UFO origin and states that the U.S. Government was aware of the 'marine aspect' of the phenomenon all along.

 

Wasting my time i know with the below FACTUAL accounts released by the freedom of information act, FOIA). 

 

First hand accounts and reports detailing US Naval witnesses and FACTUAL radar hits of UAPs .

 

Straight from the US Naval of Intelligence reports of FACTUAL accounts of GENUINE UAP encounters...

 

 

 

Air Intelligence Division Study No. 203 with the help of the Office of Naval Intelligence presents the first important clue that the Pentagon was well aware of the phenomenon's marine nature. This document is one of the rarest documents in the national archives linking the Office of Naval Intelligence to any association with the investigation of the phenomenon and offers an early clue that the study of the UFO phenomenon did not fall totally within the realm of the Air Force. Could the naval UFO experience be more involved than the air force..?

Recent reports by UFO researchers suggest there is an on going Navy effort to destroy any evidence linking the navy to the UFO phenomenon. The reports of UFO sightings being edited out of ship's logs, by UFO researchers, confirms a considerable naval sensitivity to the phenomenon. Researchers have also reported the naval archives in Seacaus, New Jersey appear to have been purposely sabotaged. Documents are missing and files have purposely been mixed chronologically thwarting researchers attempts to do meaningful research at this facility relating to the UFO phenomenon.

 

 

And then is the cases of Missing  US Naval Log Books:

 

Pay special to some of the dates that these US Naval UAP encounters took place.. 

 

You will be, like the others on here, who are not paying attention to the actual FACTS   contained in  the cases witnessed and logged below be like LOL..

 

These US Naval of Intelligence UAP reports below are just a scratch at the surface. 

 

 

1;

 

Brand New Log Books / Do not Discuss:

 

Feb 1963 Royal Navy North Atlantic Fleet:

After Tom witnessed the senior officer enter the UFO observations in the radar log book, their shift ended. Radar room personnel on the early morning watch ate breakfast and then turned in. Probably sometime between 1200 and 1300, Tom said he was awakened and ordered to report to the ward room, along with the five radar and sonar operators on his shift that morning.

The senior officer proceeded to go over the events of that morning, asking questions about the radar-sonar observations.He told the six men that their conversations were being taped and explained that until more was known about the unknown target, they were to remain silent about what they had seen. "Gentlemen," the officer said, "we will remember that we have all signed the Official Secrets Act (or words to that effect)." Although there were no threats, the implication was clear that to divulge anything to anyone concerning the tracking of the UFO would be considered a breach of security.

I asked Tom if the meeting might have been part of a general order carried out on other ships in the fleet as well in connection with the UFO incident. He responded that he didn't know if it was or not.

The witness recollected that he was in the ward room about 10 minutes. He said he never heard anything further about the unknown target.

When Preston came on duty once again at 2400 hours, he said he was surprised to discover that a "spanking new book" had replaced the radar log used the previous morning.

 

 

 

2;

 

USS Reeves:

All of a sudden I lost Sonar Contact like it was never there, but CIC still had it at last bearing with an abrupt positive altitude change. The chatter was look at the size of that thing. I went outside through the sonar door on the Port Side and visually saw a large moonlike shape that flew upward over the ship at a 60 degree angle and disappeared into the sky in seconds. I heard no noise from the object when it went over us. I saw a full moon that night on the other side of the ship, but it remained fairly constant give or take a few ship rolls.

When we pulled into port a few weeks later, all records in the Bridge, CIC, and Sonar logs about that time were torn out. Whoever tore them out made one error, the pen imprint on the next page was still there. No one spoke of the incident again

 

 

3:

 

USS Reclaimer:

The F-14 went to full afterburner right off the deck, pulling a rooster-tail7 behind it. It rattled the ship severely as it went by. This USO thing pulled easily ahead of the jet, crossed the horizon in seconds while underwater... no visible wake. It just... I mean this thing was FAST. Well, we just stood there. Wow, you know... what do ya say. We speculated about what it was. Guam told us it was a classified matter not to be reported or discussed.

 

 

You actually believe that any government would ALLOW such clear photos anywhere near the public domain...

 

 

 

4:

Carrier USS Kearsarge:

The cameraman was able to get some photos, not sure how many, before they all took off almost straight up and out of sight.
The cameraman turned the film into to his superior officer and was told to not ever mention it. My dad said he and his friend were asked about the incident by their NCO and also told not to ever talk about it.

 

Sonar operator Account -British Destroyer Warship:

One of Sanderson's sources stated that no less than 13 craft recorded in their logs that their sonars had tracked this object. Allegedly, the unknown target continued to be tracked for four days as it maneuvered down to depths of 27,000 feet! (This must have been in the vicinity of the Atlantic's deepest point -- 28,374 feet below sea level -- in the Puerto Rico Trench.)

If the above story is true, nothing of known earthly origin can travel underwater at such speeds or maneuver at such depths. The fastest nuclear subs can attain 45 knots (52 miles per hour) and dive to around 3,000 feet. The bathyscaphe Trieste, with a specially constructed pressure-resistant hull, descended to a record 35,820 feet in 1960. However, it was incapable of maneuvering about.

It is unfortunate that more than 21 years elapsed before the Preston case reached the attention of a UFO investigator. We have here yet another example of government UFO secrecy at work--this time a foreign nation, Great Britain. Largely due to his apprehension over potential repercussions if he revealed his experience,Tom felt compelled to keep his knowledge of the event to himself. Since it hadn't occurred to him at the time that the radar log notes would be removed,he had only his memory to rely upon during our interviews.

 

Captain of Navy R5D aircraft,February 8,1951:

Crew members and passengers witnessed UFO emerging from the Atlantic ocean:

When we landed at Argentia (Newfoundland), we were met by intelligence officers. The types of questions they asked us were like Henry Ford asking about the Model T.

You got the feeling that they were putting words in your mouth.
It was obvious that there had been many sightings in the same area, and most of the observers did not let the cat out of the bag openly. When we arrived in the United States, we had to make a full report to Navy Intelligence..
I found out a few months later that Gander radar did track the object in excess of 1800 mph".

[Tazio]

25 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Then prove it.

 

Show what photos have been manipulated.

 

In fact offer some  of your own  layman's scientific  proof  that can stand up to those photos that have been given the green light of NON  interference.. Today we have all kinds of sophisticated CGI and photoshopped manipulation that can manipulate photos of anything.

 

The FACT is that way back in the 1930s/ 40s and 50s it was much harder to do.

 

Don't think for a minute that there are NOT such photos that have been credibly   investigated and show NO signs of manipulation, that is also a FACT..

 

So what of those photos, you are in no position to refute them..

 

In FACT i would take such photos  as genuine , your bias opinion offers nothing , rather than actually looking  at the methods used to determine the differences between genuine non manipulated photos you use your opinion???

 

 

Below are individuals, unlike you or me or anyone on here , who had the credentials and methods to determine when a photo was manipulated..  The statements below from them are FACTS . And since you are citing the term FACT , offer proof that the individuals below, along with their professions that led to their statements are in any way inferior to your opinions..

 

Why would i even entertain your FACTUAL argument when you are in no way qualified to refute such individuals below???   

 

When will those like you, chuck in the towel ,and admit, that it just ain't happening ,when personal bias of opinion is above those that have the credentials  and have  so much more credibility???    

 

  

Appropriate statements:
 

"I feel that the Air Force has misled us for twenty years.I equate almost all of that misrepresentation to incompetence and superficiality on the part of the Air Frce investigators involved with Project bluebook and its forerunners.Nobody there with any strong scientific competence s looking into the problem ."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona






"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969






"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963






"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).






"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966


 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

        

I said **** all about your beloved UFO’s you spoon. I made a post saying photos have been manipulated since they were first taken. Nothing about aliens of UFO. But nope. You just charge in with another rant followed by yet another bit of cut and paste. 
 

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Then prove it.

 

Show what photos have been manipulated.

 

In fact offer some  of your own  layman's scientific  proof  that can stand up to those photos that have been given the green light of NON  interference.. Today we have all kinds of sophisticated CGI and photoshopped manipulation that can manipulate photos of anything.

 

The FACT is that way back in the 1930s/ 40s and 50s it was much harder to do.

 

Don't think for a minute that there are NOT such photos that have been credibly   investigated and show NO signs of manipulation, that is also a FACT..

 

So what of those photos, you are in no position to refute them..

 

In FACT i would take such photos  as genuine , your bias opinion offers nothing , rather than actually looking  at the methods used to determine the differences between genuine non manipulated photos you use your opinion???

 

 

Below are individuals, unlike you or me or anyone on here , who had the credentials and methods to determine when a photo was manipulated..  The statements below from them are FACTS . And since you are citing the term FACT , offer proof that the individuals below, along with their professions that led to their statements are in any way inferior to your opinions..

 

Why would i even entertain your FACTUAL argument when you are in no way qualified to refute such individuals below???   

 

When will those like you, chuck in the towel ,and admit, that it just ain't happening ,when personal bias of opinion is above those that have the credentials  and have  so much more credibility???    

 

  

Appropriate statements:
 

"I feel that the Air Force has misled us for twenty years.I equate almost all of that misrepresentation to incompetence and superficiality on the part of the Air Frce investigators involved with Project bluebook and its forerunners.Nobody there with any strong scientific competence s looking into the problem ."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona






"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969






"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963






"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).






"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966


 

 

"Prove it" lol

[Unknown user]

Just now, Tazio said:

I said **** all about your beloved UFO’s you spoon. I made a post saying photos have been manipulated since they were first taken. Nothing about aliens of UFO. But nope. You just charge in with another rant followed by yet another bit of cut and paste. 
 

Or did he?

Prove it

[maroonlegions]

20 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

FAKE NEWS 

 

Heckler 

 

Prove it.. 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

19 minutes ago, Tazio said:

I said **** all about your beloved UFO’s you spoon. I made a post saying photos have been manipulated since they were first taken. Nothing about aliens of UFO. But nope. You just charge in with another rant followed by yet another bit of cut and paste. 
 

 

Ah, losing the argument so it's now time for  personal  name calling...

I will refer  from responding to your "spoon" comment as you might be a minor judging by that comment. 

 

You did say that photos have been manipulated since they were first  taken  on a UFO related thread..  

 

I then asked you to provide "PROOF" that photos have been manipulated since they were first taken..  Why??  See my comment above this one.

 

You knew  very well that i would take your comment  at my post of NON manipulated  UAP photos as  a rebuttal ,even it you did not say so..

 

Sneaky??

 

And yes photos have been manipulated , but much harder to do way back in the 30s. 40s..  

 

Maybe you should have included a bit more in your "photos have been manipulated since they were taken" comment, so as to avoid any misunderstandings???

 

As for me charging in with a rant and cut and paste ..  

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Ah, losing the argument so it's now time for  personal  name calling...

I will refer  from responding to your "spoon" comment as you might be a minor judging by that comment. 

 

You did say that photos have been manipulated since they were first  taken  on a UFO related thread..  

 

I then asked you to provide "PROOF" that photos have been manipulated since they were first taken..  Why??  See my comment above this one.

 

You knew  very well that i would take your comment  at my post of NON manipulated  UAP photos as  a rebuttal ,even it you did not say so..

 

Sneaky??

 

And yes photos have been manipulated , but much harder to do way back in the 30s. 40s..  

 

Maybe you should have included a bit more in your "photos have been manipulated since they were taken" comment, so as to avoid any misunderstandings???

 

As for me charging in with a rant and cut and paste ..  

 

 

Only you care that much about these photos bud.

 

The core of this is that aliens haven't visited and won't in your lifetime - we don't know what those photos are, but we definitely know what they're not!

[Boab]

Christ, you need to do some serious scrolling to get to the bottom of this thread eh !

💪

[Tazio]

36 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Ah, losing the argument so it's now time for  personal  name calling...

I will refer  from responding to your "spoon" comment as you might be a minor judging by that comment. 

 

You did say that photos have been manipulated since they were first  taken  on a UFO related thread..  

 

I then asked you to provide "PROOF" that photos have been manipulated since they were first taken..  Why??  See my comment above this one.

 

You knew  very well that i would take your comment  at my post of NON manipulated  UAP photos as  a rebuttal ,even it you did not say so..

 

Sneaky??

 

And yes photos have been manipulated , but much harder to do way back in the 30s. 40s..  

 

Maybe you should have included a bit more in your "photos have been manipulated since they were taken" comment, so as to avoid any misunderstandings???

 

As for me charging in with a rant and cut and paste ..  

 

 

 

 

Losing the argument? I wasn’t aware I was in one. I made a comment about photo manipulation to the thread in general and you presumed it was aimed at you. 
Your posts on this thread frequently contain insults aimed at other people so taking the moral high ground isn’t the best look. 

[Ulysses]

20 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

About a week ago.  

 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

There's some very interesting reading in the article below about the role of the Office of Naval Intelligence in the UFO subject - it also makes mention of Donald Menzel's association with the organization, speculates about UFO origin and states that the U.S. Government was aware of the 'marine aspect' of the phenomenon all along.

 

Wasting my time i know with the below FACTUAL accounts released by the freedom of information act, FOIA). 

 

First hand accounts and reports detailing US Naval witnesses and FACTUAL radar hits of UAPs .

 

Straight from the US Naval of Intelligence reports of FACTUAL accounts of GENUINE UAP encounters...

 

 

 

Air Intelligence Division Study No. 203 with the help of the Office of Naval Intelligence presents the first important clue that the Pentagon was well aware of the phenomenon's marine nature. This document is one of the rarest documents in the national archives linking the Office of Naval Intelligence to any association with the investigation of the phenomenon and offers an early clue that the study of the UFO phenomenon did not fall totally within the realm of the Air Force. Could the naval UFO experience be more involved than the air force..?

Recent reports by UFO researchers suggest there is an on going Navy effort to destroy any evidence linking the navy to the UFO phenomenon. The reports of UFO sightings being edited out of ship's logs, by UFO researchers, confirms a considerable naval sensitivity to the phenomenon. Researchers have also reported the naval archives in Seacaus, New Jersey appear to have been purposely sabotaged. Documents are missing and files have purposely been mixed chronologically thwarting researchers attempts to do meaningful research at this facility relating to the UFO phenomenon.

 

 

And then is the cases of Missing  US Naval Log Books:

 

Pay special to some of the dates that these US Naval UAP encounters took place.. 

 

You will be, like the others on here, who are not paying attention to the actual FACTS   contained in  the cases witnessed and logged below be like LOL..

 

These US Naval of Intelligence UAP reports below are just a scratch at the surface. 

 

 

1;

 

Brand New Log Books / Do not Discuss:

 

Feb 1963 Royal Navy North Atlantic Fleet:

After Tom witnessed the senior officer enter the UFO observations in the radar log book, their shift ended. Radar room personnel on the early morning watch ate breakfast and then turned in. Probably sometime between 1200 and 1300, Tom said he was awakened and ordered to report to the ward room, along with the five radar and sonar operators on his shift that morning.

The senior officer proceeded to go over the events of that morning, asking questions about the radar-sonar observations.He told the six men that their conversations were being taped and explained that until more was known about the unknown target, they were to remain silent about what they had seen. "Gentlemen," the officer said, "we will remember that we have all signed the Official Secrets Act (or words to that effect)." Although there were no threats, the implication was clear that to divulge anything to anyone concerning the tracking of the UFO would be considered a breach of security.

I asked Tom if the meeting might have been part of a general order carried out on other ships in the fleet as well in connection with the UFO incident. He responded that he didn't know if it was or not.

The witness recollected that he was in the ward room about 10 minutes. He said he never heard anything further about the unknown target.

When Preston came on duty once again at 2400 hours, he said he was surprised to discover that a "spanking new book" had replaced the radar log used the previous morning.

 

 

 

2;

 

USS Reeves:

All of a sudden I lost Sonar Contact like it was never there, but CIC still had it at last bearing with an abrupt positive altitude change. The chatter was look at the size of that thing. I went outside through the sonar door on the Port Side and visually saw a large moonlike shape that flew upward over the ship at a 60 degree angle and disappeared into the sky in seconds. I heard no noise from the object when it went over us. I saw a full moon that night on the other side of the ship, but it remained fairly constant give or take a few ship rolls.

When we pulled into port a few weeks later, all records in the Bridge, CIC, and Sonar logs about that time were torn out. Whoever tore them out made one error, the pen imprint on the next page was still there. No one spoke of the incident again

 

 

3:

 

USS Reclaimer:

The F-14 went to full afterburner right off the deck, pulling a rooster-tail7 behind it. It rattled the ship severely as it went by. This USO thing pulled easily ahead of the jet, crossed the horizon in seconds while underwater... no visible wake. It just... I mean this thing was FAST. Well, we just stood there. Wow, you know... what do ya say. We speculated about what it was. Guam told us it was a classified matter not to be reported or discussed.

 

 

You actually believe that any government would ALLOW such clear photos anywhere near the public domain...

 

 

 

4:

Carrier USS Kearsarge:

The cameraman was able to get some photos, not sure how many, before they all took off almost straight up and out of sight.
The cameraman turned the film into to his superior officer and was told to not ever mention it. My dad said he and his friend were asked about the incident by their NCO and also told not to ever talk about it.

 

Sonar operator Account -British Destroyer Warship:

One of Sanderson's sources stated that no less than 13 craft recorded in their logs that their sonars had tracked this object. Allegedly, the unknown target continued to be tracked for four days as it maneuvered down to depths of 27,000 feet! (This must have been in the vicinity of the Atlantic's deepest point -- 28,374 feet below sea level -- in the Puerto Rico Trench.)

If the above story is true, nothing of known earthly origin can travel underwater at such speeds or maneuver at such depths. The fastest nuclear subs can attain 45 knots (52 miles per hour) and dive to around 3,000 feet. The bathyscaphe Trieste, with a specially constructed pressure-resistant hull, descended to a record 35,820 feet in 1960. However, it was incapable of maneuvering about.

It is unfortunate that more than 21 years elapsed before the Preston case reached the attention of a UFO investigator. We have here yet another example of government UFO secrecy at work--this time a foreign nation, Great Britain. Largely due to his apprehension over potential repercussions if he revealed his experience,Tom felt compelled to keep his knowledge of the event to himself. Since it hadn't occurred to him at the time that the radar log notes would be removed,he had only his memory to rely upon during our interviews.

 

Captain of Navy R5D aircraft,February 8,1951:

Crew members and passengers witnessed UFO emerging from the Atlantic ocean:

When we landed at Argentia (Newfoundland), we were met by intelligence officers. The types of questions they asked us were like Henry Ford asking about the Model T.

You got the feeling that they were putting words in your mouth.
It was obvious that there had been many sightings in the same area, and most of the observers did not let the cat out of the bag openly. When we arrived in the United States, we had to make a full report to Navy Intelligence..
I found out a few months later that Gander radar did track the object in excess of 1800 mph".

I was laughing at Maple's very funny post. 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, tell your Alien friends , they need to stop showing themselves to the USAF. They come all this way, in their super duper technological wonders and end up in the same country if earth, every time, unless they really feck it up and end up on Falkirk.(Wrong California)

[maroonlegions]

Just like  those photographic evidence cases , that have passed scrutiny from the 30s/40s/50s, there is another un reported  phenomenon that outdates   sophisticated  modern means of manipulation..

 

If some unknown  atmospheric aerial phenomena can enter and leave the skies at will then it follows that they can also with the oceans of the world. And again displaying signs of advanced technology>  

 

Unidentified Submerged Objects or Underwater-(USOs),  leaving water or entering water are an underreported phenomenon. The purpose of this post is to show beyond doubt that USOs have in the past been witnessed at see by various countries Naval feets and ships.

 

They have been recorded and confirmed by SONAR hits, just like the UAPs who have been recorded and tracked on RADAR. 

 

Those that are curious or interested in this subject  can sift through this comprehensive list of more than a thousand sightings and see  co the most noteworthy. The criteria for noteworthy? A  credible verifiable source. From Naval witnesses back up by SONAR hits..

 

From sifting through the very first 10 accounts of that list here is the most interesting:

In 1492 Christopher Columbus reported flickering lights at night hovering above the ocean in the Bahamas area and made note of it in his journal.

link;

 

http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=200

 

Below are a few very early USO cases with first hand witness accounts.

 

 

 

1845 backed by official sources such as the Malta Times and The British Association for the Advancement of Science. Excerpt:
 

At this moment three luminous bodies issued from the sea, about half a mile from the vessel, and remained visible for ten minutes

 

 

1850 Canada
 

a “large spheroidal mass” that was seen floating by the crew of the Advance in Wellington Channel

 

1861 North Atlantic
 

Three luminous bodies issue from the sea during a squall. In view 10 minutes.

 

 

Lake Erie 1867

What makes this case credible is that it was witnessed by many over the years. Excerpts:
 

No motion, however, in any direction was to be discovered, and at once concluded that it was nothing more than the "mysterious light,” which for many years past, at longer or shorter intervals, has been seen by the inhabitants at this point on the lake shore.

The object appeared to be some 200 or more feet in length upon the water and about as high above the water as an upper cabin steamer, such as was in use upon the lake twenty years ago

 

1870 Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Excerpt:
 

That, whatever it may have been, it traveled against the wind. "It came up obliquely against the wind, and finally settled down right in the wind's eye."

 

LIST OF WATER-RELATED SIGHTINGS

After selecting the date group you are interested in (e.g.”500-1946” or “The Master List”), a list for that group will appear.
The dates on the list that are in blue (hyperlinked) will take you to the text for the date selected.

[ 0500-1946 ] [ 1947-1959 ] [ 1960-1965 ] [ 1966-1972 ] [ 1973-1979 ] [ 1980-1999 ] [ 2000- 2015 ] [ Undated ]

[ THE MASTER LIST ]

 

[adambraejambo]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

Just like  those photographic evidence cases , that have passed scrutiny from the 30s/40s/50s, there is another un reported  phenomenon that outdates   sophisticated  modern means of manipulation..

 

If some unknown  atmospheric aerial phenomena can enter and leave the skies at will then it follows that they can also with the oceans of the world. And again displaying signs of advanced technology>  

 

Unidentified Submerged Objects or Underwater-(USOs),  leaving water or entering water are an underreported phenomenon. The purpose of this post is to show beyond doubt that USOs have in the past been witnessed at see by various countries Naval feets and ships.

 

They have been recorded and confirmed by SONAR hits, just like the UAPs who have been recorded and tracked on RADAR. 

 

Those that are curious or interested in this subject  can sift through this comprehensive list of more than a thousand sightings and see  co the most noteworthy. The criteria for noteworthy? A  credible verifiable source. From Naval witnesses back up by SONAR hits..

 

From sifting through the very first 10 accounts of that list here is the most interesting:

In 1492 Christopher Columbus reported flickering lights at night hovering above the ocean in the Bahamas area and made note of it in his journal.

link;

 

http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=200

 

Below are a few very early USO cases with first hand witness accounts.

 

 

 

1845 backed by official sources such as the Malta Times and The British Association for the Advancement of Science. Excerpt:
 

At this moment three luminous bodies issued from the sea, about half a mile from the vessel, and remained visible for ten minutes

 

 

1850 Canada
 

a “large spheroidal mass” that was seen floating by the crew of the Advance in Wellington Channel

 

1861 North Atlantic
 

Three luminous bodies issue from the sea during a squall. In view 10 minutes.

 

 

Lake Erie 1867

What makes this case credible is that it was witnessed by many over the years. Excerpts:
 

No motion, however, in any direction was to be discovered, and at once concluded that it was nothing more than the "mysterious light,” which for many years past, at longer or shorter intervals, has been seen by the inhabitants at this point on the lake shore.

 

The object appeared to be some 200 or more feet in length upon the water and about as high above the water as an upper cabin steamer, such as was in use upon the lake twenty years ago

 

1870 Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Excerpt:
 

That, whatever it may have been, it traveled against the wind. "It came up obliquely against the wind, and finally settled down right in the wind's eye."

 

LIST OF WATER-RELATED SIGHTINGS

After selecting the date group you are interested in (e.g.”500-1946” or “The Master List”), a list for that group will appear.
The dates on the list that are in blue (hyperlinked) will take you to the text for the date selected.

[ 0500-1946 ] [ 1947-1959 ] [ 1960-1965 ] [ 1966-1972 ] [ 1973-1979 ] [ 1980-1999 ] [ 2000- 2015 ] [ Undated ]

[ THE MASTER LIST ]

Hello. I mean no offence   Columbus  also claimed to see 3 mermaids on Jan 9th 1493. Only mentioning it as it was first link you posted.  I'd strike anything he said about strange lights in the sky.  

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, adambraejambo said:

Hello. I mean no offence   Columbus  also claimed to see 3 mermaids on Jan 9th 1493. Only mentioning it as it was first link you posted.  I'd strike anything he said about strange lights in the sky.  

 

 

Ah but can you prove he didn't?

[adambraejambo]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Ah but can you prove he didn't?

Yes. I can lipread my pet goldfish. He knows another fish  that's friends with a dolphin that knows a blue whale.  It general knowledge in the fish world that mermaids are fake. Hope this clarifies matters.

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, adambraejambo said:

Yes. I can lipread my pet goldfish. He knows another fish  that's friends with a dolphin that knows a blue whale.  It general knowledge in the fish world that mermaids are fake. Hope this clarifies matters.

As long as it's a very credible goldfish, I don't see any flaws in this

[maroonlegions]

23 hours ago, adambraejambo said:

Yes. I can lipread my pet goldfish. He knows another fish  that's friends with a dolphin that knows a blue whale.  It general knowledge in the fish world that mermaids are fake. Hope this clarifies matters.

 

22 hours ago, Smithee said:

As long as it's a very credible goldfish, I don't see any flaws in this

 

 

Well, seeing as you two  still have failed to demonstrate any of your statements, I am going to
assume you are incapable of rational discussion and not waste my time trying to reason with somebody
not amenable to reason.

 

It is impossible to discuss anything with individuals  who never give any valid reasons for their statements, apart from personal bias or valid reasons for critiquing those statements from highly credible sources and people .

 

You two  are very much a classic example of the pseudoskeptic being debunked in this thread, and a great illustration of how a
pseudoskeptic gets a torn a new one when they debate with  those  that offer highly credible information from credible sources.  

 

My last post included actual FACTUAL and credible accounts /cases of USOs  straight from sources like the US Naval OF Intelligence.

 

One question though for you two, if, and it is a FACT ,that such organisations as the US Naval Of Intelligence and indeed  other nations Navy , find , after investigation ,that cases of unknown objects witnessed and recorded on SONAR  are of "real concern" after displaying  technology way ahead of what they had at the time then why are yous not concerned. Or even acknowledge that there is and has been  something very real unknowns going on in the world's oceans???

 

 

The case so far of  a POSSIBLE ET hypothesis as one of a possible source for such "high strangeness cases"   is by no means refuted..

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

 

Well, seeing as you two  still have failed to demonstrate any of your statements, I am going to
assume you are incapable of rational discussion and not waste my time trying to reason with somebody
not amenable to reason.

 

It is impossible to discuss anything with individuals  who never give any valid reasons for their statements, apart from personal bias or valid reasons for critiquing those statements from highly credible sources and people .

 

You two  are very much a classic example of the pseudoskeptic being debunked in this thread, and a great illustration of how a
pseudoskeptic gets a torn a new one when they debate with  those  that offer highly credible information from credible sources.  

 

My last post included actual FACTUAL and credible accounts /cases of USOs  straight from sources like the US Naval OF Intelligence.

 

One question though for you two, if, and it is a FACT ,that such organisations as the US Naval Of Intelligence and indeed  other nations Navy , find , after investigation ,that cases of unknown objects witnessed and recorded on SONAR  are of "real concern" after displaying  technology way ahead of what they had at the time then why are yous not concerned. Or even acknowledge that there is and has been  something very real unknowns going on in the world's oceans???

 

 

The case so far of  a POSSIBLE ET hypothesis as one of a possible source for such "high strangeness cases"   is by no means refuted..

 

 

Aye, there's aliens in the sea ML.

 

Yet again, no one's said it's impossible that these things are ET, that's just a strawman you keep setting up so you can feel like superman blowing it down.

 

Of course it's possible. 

But it's not what happened.

 

And your argument is, as always, "well how do you explain that then?"

 

I don't, I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm just saying it's not aliens. 

[Jeffros Furios]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

 

Well, seeing as you two  still have failed to demonstrate any of your statements, I am going to
assume you are incapable of rational discussion and not waste my time trying to reason with somebody
not amenable to reason.

 

It is impossible to discuss anything with individuals  who never give any valid reasons for their statements, apart from personal bias or valid reasons for critiquing those statements from highly credible sources and people .

 

You two  are very much a classic example of the pseudoskeptic being debunked in this thread, and a great illustration of how a
pseudoskeptic gets a torn a new one when they debate with  those  that offer highly credible information from credible sources.  

 

My last post included actual FACTUAL and credible accounts /cases of USOs  straight from sources like the US Naval OF Intelligence.

 

One question though for you two, if, and it is a FACT ,that such organisations as the US Naval Of Intelligence and indeed  other nations Navy , find , after investigation ,that cases of unknown objects witnessed and recorded on SONAR  are of "real concern" after displaying  technology way ahead of what they had at the time then why are yous not concerned. Or even acknowledge that there is and has been  something very real unknowns going on in the world's oceans???

 

 

The case so far of  a POSSIBLE ET hypothesis as one of a possible source for such "high strangeness cases"   is by no means refuted..

 

 

 

You should invite ET to do the half time raffle 

[Greedy Jambo]

I read something about scientists sending a signal into space, ignoring stephen hawking's warning. 

That is pretty worrying if you bother to think about it.

 

[Pap]

1 minute ago, Greedy Jambo said:

I read something about scientists sending a signal into space, ignoring stephen hawking's warning. 

That is pretty worrying if you bother to think about it.

 

 

He's deed now, mate. I wouldnt worry about it.