soo then you believe in god.? either god created us or we evolved since u dont think we evolved as shown above then u believe in god?
well thats just an eye witness account I cant accept that as evidence.. so your example is meaningless in this case
the alien agenda
- Thread starter fringe
- Start date
soo then you believe in god.? either god created us or we evolved since u dont think we evolved as shown above then u believe in god?
well thats just an eye witness account I cant accept that as evidence.. so your example is meaningless in this case
Oh boy. Have you read ANY of my posts?
No, I do not believe in god. And evolution doesn't require "belief", it's a fact.
Yup, selectivism.
Have you seen the statistics on eye witness reliability?
ok...
... i see the standard rant and some book club stuff
/mystified
the question remains...
what comes to mind? anything in particular?
There isn't any radar evidence.
you refer to the 1956 lakenheath incident?
Read my exact words about "radar evidence". It applies not just to the Lakenheath incident.you refer to the 1956 lakenheath incident?
since it is only lakenheath that is referenced in this thread and you hold that your statement applies to it......
you assert there are "radar returns"
There isn't any radar evidence.
you assert there are not
/confused
I thought you could read better than that Gus:
Nope, reread.
There may well be radar returns: but it isn't necessarily a single object tracked through the atmosphere at over time. It could be multiple objects at different locations and different times, the sweep of the radar (and human perception) would "fit" the returns as a continuous track. Hell, in some cases you can get a return from air currents. (I was present at an RAeS [Royal Aeronautical Society] lecture a couple of decades ago when one RAF radar expert stated that getting a return from the wake of a (very) fast aircraft was possible under the right circumstances).
Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs, are spotted all the time, but they're almost always identified later. Accepting the existence of UFOs is as easy as looking at a plane and not being able to identify it. It's a UFO, you haven't identified it, but there's nothing mysterious about that. Also, one man's UFO is another man's identified flying object, just because one doesn't know what it is doesn't mean that nobody does. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about this.
What I don't accept is the claims that UFOs are really aliens visiting our planet. Not only has every such claim collapsed like a flan in a cupboard when investigated, but the entire concept is self-refuting. You're saying that you see a flying object and didn't know what it is(thus being a UFO) but then positing that you do know what it is, it was aliens, thus meaning that it isn't a UFO, you know what it is. Do you see the contradiction there? It's just like those people who say that an event can't be explained so they can explain that it was supernatural(a ghost or some bollocks).
The particulars are irrelevant. The generals are more than enough to establish my contention. That there are flying objects and that some are unidentified, this is fact. It in no way implies ETs or anything of the sort.
What I don't accept is the claims that UFOs are really aliens visiting our planet. Not only has every such claim collapsed like a flan in a cupboard when investigated, but the entire concept is self-refuting. You're saying that you see a flying object and didn't know what it is(thus being a UFO) but then positing that you do know what it is, it was aliens, thus meaning that it isn't a UFO, you know what it is. Do you see the contradiction there? It's just like those people who say that an event can't be explained so they can explain that it was supernatural(a ghost or some bollocks).
The particulars are irrelevant. The generals are more than enough to establish my contention. That there are flying objects and that some are unidentified, this is fact. It in no way implies ETs or anything of the sort.
umm
you are referencing lakenheath
you are also referencing other incidents
what should i do here? guess at what other incidents you refer to?
why would i not focus on the named incident?
and? there is some particular significance that there could be more than one object tracked? that aids in what? identification?
i noticed
blather on then
Any incident using "radar evidence". The flaws apply throughout (except for certain circumstances, ones which, to my recollection, haven't happened anyway).
If it was more than one object then the "track" as perceived wasn't the track of a single object moving at high speed and pulling highly unusual manoeuvres: it was discreet "objects" giving the appearance of a single object doing that.
I.e. object 1 at time 1, THEN object 2 at time 2 could be taken as single object transiting from position 1 to position 2 at high speed.
Except for the really spiffy-looking ones.
ahh, you joke
are our skies relatively safe with regards to the use of radar tech, dy?
i mean your concerns about the reliability of radar hardly inspires any confidence in air travel. why then are accidents few and far between? and of those, are not most, attributed to human error rather than faulty radar returns?
is it because radar functions just as it is supposed to? with a high degree of reliability and accuracy?
or is the industry perpetrating a con job on the gullible masses? and you, the intrepid whistle blower?
are our skies relatively safe with regards to the use of radar tech, dy?
i mean your concerns about the reliability of radar hardly inspires any confidence in air travel. why then are accidents few and far between? and of those, are not most, attributed to human error rather than faulty radar returns?
is it because radar functions just as it is supposed to? with a high degree of reliability and accuracy?
or is the industry perpetrating a con job on the gullible masses? and you, the intrepid whistle blower?
Safer than they would be without.
Could it be because events like Lakenheath (whatever it was/they were ) are relatively rare?
You are aware, are you not, that a large number of radars in service (i.e. air traffic control/ civilian ones) don't actually detect aircraft anyway? They rely on the aircraft itself to transmit a signal.
interesting
so primary radars have been decommissioned? and that only secondary systems are being used? and if the transponder fails we only have the pilot's visual acuity and judgment which is ......notoriously unreliable as per eyewitness studies cited in this thread...to bring us down safely?
is that correct?
so primary radars have been decommissioned? and that only secondary systems are being used? and if the transponder fails we only have the pilot's visual acuity and judgment which is ......notoriously unreliable as per eyewitness studies cited in this thread...to bring us down safely?
is that correct?
Air Traffic Control radars tend to be transponder-reliant (secondary), not skin-painting radars, due to the power requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_radar
.....you get to remain in your pseudo skeptical comfort zone ranting about illuminati/mass hallucinations/ghosts when you conjure up some imaginary crackpots and hold them to be setting the terms of some imagined discussion
i mean seriously, were you not the only person in this thread that brought up the illuminati?
whats next, the easter bunny?
so? proof of et can easily rest on a single event
really dy, must you insist on a second joint address by the klingon rep and obama before you can trust your senses?