The real UFOs

Originally posted by Persol
Sorry, but this makes no sense. How did you test the hypothosis that a UFO caused the malfunction, without a UFO present? If you were talking about the other option, how'd you test 'coincidence'?


If you read the report. It was a multiple F4 sighting, once the first F4 approached 25 nautical miles he lost all Instrumentation. In the report it states that he turned around for home and instruments returned because "he was no longer considered a threat" Radar reported that the size of the object had a return comparable to a 707 tanker. The 2nd F4 and closing into 27 nautical mile could not catch this tanker as it kept a distance from the F4 of 25 nautical miles. Then a second object leaving the original object came toward the F4 an AIM-9 missle was launch attempted but at that instance all instrumentation went dead.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. You are tiresome, Q.

Now you know how I feel about the barrage of believers who can’t seem to get a grip on reality.

you are so righteous in your beliefs.

Don’t you mean, ‘lack thereof.’ You are the believer, not me.

This falls into the "how can you say that with a straight face" catagory.

Then by all means, put the issue to rest and tell us all exactly how it will benefit anyone in anyway – you’ve avoided that question several times.

Humankind has surely made great strides because of people like you!

So, are you advocating that chasing UFO stories has somehow benefited mankind? Perhaps we should tell all the research scientists to drop what they’re doing and chase UFO’s. Who needs a cure for diseases – lets chase Ives’s fantasies instead.

I said we can't reasonably claim human technology was responsible, as no known technology accounts for the incident.

And again I ask, how savvy are you to all technologies known to mankind? What you believers don’t seem to get is that when something is unexplained, it does not automatically open the door to aliens. To not reasonably assume human technology could not be responsible is pure foolishness.

Let's be clear here; you are advocating ignoring this incident; not being a curious individual.

Curious, yes – wasting time, no.

Having declared that the incident should be ignored, an astonishing admission in and of itself, you mock attempts to analyze it.

Then please tell us, the answer we are all waiting to here, from the question you continually avoid – to what ends and what benefits will this provide?

This saves you from having to examine the specifics of the behavior and respond to those specifics.

And to what ends? What response? What benefit? What is the point?

Give us this explanation that fits the facts!

You miss the point, as do all believers - I could care less the explanation. It is a pointless venture and a waste of resources.
 
Fluid, I see what you are saying. Sort of a re-testing of the reaction within the same incident. Perhaps I am missing the old 2 + 2 every now and then! Good observation.

As for Q, you are anti-empirical, anti-study, rigid and incurious. You're boring, frankly. Enjoy your little worldview. Here's just one tip. Your arguments would carry more weight if you actually responded to the arguments you dispute, instead of repeatedly re-characterizing them in your own terms, to suit your arguments. You debate in bad faith, and I can no longer enable that. Respond all you want, and crow about your "victories". In fact, I'm sure it is nice, knowing you are right all the time. But as I said, I cannot enable your methods any longer. Ivan was right. If someday you change your ways, we might debate again.
 
But as I said, I cannot enable your methods any longer.

My methods? You mean the direct questions to you?

At least I responded to your questions - its too bad you didn't have the backbone to respond to mine.

Here's a dime - go by yourself a spine.

If someday you change your ways, we might debate again.

You mean if I someday lose the use of my faculties and begin seeing aliens, we'll talk?
 
Re: World Trade Center UFO pre 9-11

Originally posted by fluid1959
World Trade Center UFO pre 9-11

http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov

Jerri DeAngelo - Lead Special Effects Creator Adoni Films


Opinion on authenticity of video file known as WTC UFO.

I am the lead special effects creator for Adoni Productions and Adoni Films....

fluid1959, great post! I saw this used as a commercial for the SCI FI channel...I think...some years ago. Then, months later I saw this hit the mainstream news media. I thought they had all been duped by a out of date commercial. I still think that this could be the case. I understand that this was supposedly submitted to the SCI FI channel as a result of their request for UFO footage. I have also read that the source is available for comment. I never have investigated this story. Could you provide the link to this quote? The link posted didn't work.
 
Ives, I tried the link again and it works fine for me. Maybe your
computer doesn't have the needed player? It is a link to view
the video itself, and is quite slow to download, at least on my
connection. The video is very interesting, but I have no idea if
it is unaltered, other than the review given. If it could be proven
real beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would really be something.
Maybe I misunderstood. Are you speaking of a link at SciFi.com to
the analysis of the video?
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
Ives, I tried the link again and it works fine for me. Maybe your
computer doesn't have the needed player? It is a link to view
the video itself, and is quite slow to download, at least on my
connection. The video is very interesting, but I have no idea if
it is unaltered, other than the review given. If it could be proven
real beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would really be something.
Maybe I misunderstood. Are you speaking of a link at SciFi.com to
the analysis of the video?

I have all the players. My firewall may have blocked the link for some reason. Still, I already have the video. I just wasn't sure where you got the analysis.
 
fluid1959 posted the link and analysis. I haven't been able to find
the analysis either. I don't know about this one....? I can remember
seeing the video myself, but can't remember where or in what
context. If I had thought it to be real at the time, seems it would
have been engraved in my memory better.
 
Last edited:
Do any of you guys know if any other labs have examined the
WTC UFO video? Any verification of its origins? The person recording
the scene does seem to reaquire the UFO very quickly after wide
movements by it. If it's a fake, no need to discuss it further. If its
origins and the people in the scene are known to be real, seems
it should undergo further analysis at a respected and well known
lab. If Adoni films created the video themselves using their own
techniques, their analysis could be no more than advertising hype.
Its difficult to believe the video has recieved no more exposure than
it has if its origins could be verified to have actually been on the
helicopter with the people involved.
 
I'm sorry, but that 'objective review' is bullox.

This picture is an enlargement of a jpg. the 'artifacts' he is pointing at are a result of the color contrast, and the was jpgs are compressed. YOU'LL SEE THE SAME THING ON A REAL PHOTO.

This is just a VERY poor attempt to show that it is real. He could have easily recolored the items. There are toolds that can VERY easily match pixel degradation. This gentleman is not an expert, as he works for ADONI. They do not do production level special effects, are are effectivly a cult site. Just because this guy doesn;t know how to use software, doesn't mean the original it fake.
 
Thanks a lot for your effort, Persol. You impress me with your ability
to be open minded. I only wish more people in the field of science
could be so. No one needs to accept that something is factual until
it can be PROVED so. That includes the entire field of unidentified
aerial phenomena. I think it is overreaching to even call a UAP a
UFO until it can be proven to be an actual object and not some type of
aerial phenomena. But when scientific analysis is not done, there
just remains a question mark. Physical evidence is hard to come by,
but there has been some things that existed, but were never subjected to analysis. I just wish there were some way that SOME
of our universities could accept items for analysis, possibly by graduate students that were permitted use of the universities
equipment. It would involve tax monies to support such activities,
but possibly not a great deal. Items such as videos, photo negatives,
ground traces such as soil and vegetation samples, and electronic
items that malfunctioned might offer some insight. If it is shown
that some UAPs do likely represent a physical object that cannot
be explained by known technologies, maybe the "giggle factor" could
be reduced and more research carried out. Much could be learned
without having to have a "UFO" sitting on a lab bench, an example
of which could be if a spectrograph of the nighttime illumination
could be obtained through such research.
 
Tooey sez:

It would involve tax monies to support such activities

Its not only aliens in which believers imaginations run amok with wishful thinking.
 
Q is just a moron. Don't worry about her....she'll get some of her own someday! Or is it a he? Maybe Q is really an IT?
 
Back
Top