where is the evidence for alien visitation?

[Mr Anonymous]

... Glen old man, I have to confess. You're admirably slick, admirably composed. If you're not working in senior management, someone in your firm seriously isn't earning their keep.

It's a pleasure having a discussion with you.

How could an object exhibit the features of a radically advanced camouflage technique that had not yet been invented?

We haven't established at all that such an object is exhibiting the features of a radically advanced camouflage technique G - this is the problem.

As I've said before unless you can provide an adequate aeronautical explanation of how a UFO flies in the accepted sense of the term flight what your left with is something which has no business being in the air in the first place without a crane to pick it up.

Simply identifying its airframe as exhibiting advanced stealth characteristics isn't enough in itself to make your case.

In order to do that sufficiently, you have to establish clearly and unequivocally that that same "stealth" airframe as you describe it also accommodates flight - because if your UFO doesn't fly, no one ever gets to see one, period. It doesn't for fill its purpose as a vehicle if it doesn't actually get to go anywhere.

And it has to be an aeronautical explanation G - otherwise, your only other explanations available require your UFO to be operating under principals heavy in the EM emissions department and that completely negates any purpose in trying to make the thing radar proof to begin with.

EM emissions show up on radar clear as day.

So you have to be able to adequately explain how a UFO gets by as a vehicular means with the sort of airframe you advocate without using the usual spooky-Mulder UFO physics.

Your stealth UFO has to be able to fly, in the same terms as an aircraft, otherwise its own means of operation gives its presence away to radar.

Outline adequately how that works and perhaps you are making your case, without it you simply don't have a vehicle.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Mr, Analness;
Get an enema!

Yer so full of crapola, EM on radar? FOCLMAO

Mankind saw things flying long before he could understand flight.
A copter isn't very aerodynamic mate. But they "fly".

Just because we do not, AS YET, comprehend HOW something flies, doesn't mean that we can't see them flying.

This is just too funny, STDD.

 

[glenn239]

Simply identifying its airframe as exhibiting advanced stealth characteristics isn't enough in itself to make your case.

We’ve got two separate issues under discussion:

1) Is it possible to demonstrate that there were objects buzzing around with stealthy features before we invented them? If so, what the full gamut of theories that could explain this?
2) How can disc fly?

No. 2 isn’t a relevant issue to the discussion (no. 1) because it doesn’t prove no. 1 way or another. But if no. 1 IS proven (and stealth characteristics in the pre-stealth era would be seen to constitute definitive proof, hands down), then any objection raised along the basis of no.2 is swept aside. That it flew doesn’t matter. That it existed does matter.

Just because we do not, AS YET, comprehend HOW something flies, doesn't mean that we can't see them flying.

His argument is at tangent to the main issue, yes. But it’s a common debating technique to try to draw discussion off in another direction – one where it can be hoped that your opponent will be outmaneuvered. By doing so, whatever issue one was having trouble with is brushed aside in the warm afterglow of another, different, victory (in this case the avoided subject would be popping over to the site I posted and saying to yourself, “Oh, right then. The Dark Star is a flippin’ UFO with wings. That’s just a tad inconvenient.”)

 

[Ophiolite]

stealth characteristics in the pre-stealth era would be seen to constitute definitive proof, hands down

How so? Early birds had small wings and feathers and they had bugger all to do with flight at that time.
Secondly, the stealth characteristics are composed of both macro and micro features. I concede that it may be possible to demonstrate macro features compatible with stealth, but the quality of photographic evidence would absolutely preclude identification of the micro features.
Thus, the best you could do with the analysis you propose is to show that some UFOs possess a smattering of the gross features associated with stealth technology, yet not exclusively limited to it.

I was going to post the following:
Mr Anonymous kindly observed:
"You're admirably slick, admirably composed. If you're not working in senior management, someone in your firm seriously isn't earning their keep."

Slick? Well, it is more diplomatic than greasy.
Composed? Yet, your arguments are so much compost.
Senior management? I think not. Selling stolen property in a Saturday market stall perhaps.
But then I decided it didn't accurately reflect my thinking, and was merely gratuitous sarcasm, so I determined not too. Much better.


Sorry, Mr Anonymous, I haven't got a grip of this irony thing yet.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Sorry, Mr Anonymous, I haven't got a grip of this irony thing yet.

Pish! Nonsense, you're coming along splendidly. Just continue as your going and you'll be sling it back and forth with the likes of Oscar Wilde and Stephen Fry in no time.

Here, let me give you a few pointers....*

Mr, Analness;
Get an enema!

Yer so full of crapola, EM on radar? FOCLMAO

Norval! Dear chap how are you? Released and back in the community so soon - and completely un-supervised if I'm not mistaken.

Marvellous news!

What a fabulous testament to the more progressive, enlightened view our mental health-care specialists have there days you are. Why, back in my day, it was nothing to look forward to for a chap such as yourself but Institutionalisation, rubber sheets, a good clubbing before bedtime and electro-convulsive therapy every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday weather y'needed it or not.

These days it's just in long enough to pick up your prescription for your meds and back out the front door y'go. Free as a bird.

Excellent stuff. Truly inspirational.

Just one point, tincture of a thing really. Hardly worth mentioning. Probably no point anyway since patently your current prescription seems to have completely wiped whatever rudimentary grasp of the actual world you ever had completely out of your skull, but, in this world, we have this thing called Radio...

Ever heard of it? Comes out of those tiny little boxes, sounds like voices and occasionally music - you know the thing I mean, its that device you insisted was your Intergalactic Communicator linking you directly to Zorg, King of The Saucer Men shortly before your last break from us became mandatory.

Anyway, back in the day, before satelights, when people (those would be the pink skinned humanoid figures you often see trying to avoid eye-contact with you and contriving to be somewhere else whenever you're around and making those sounds with your mouth you're probably thinking of writing in reply but just come out as gook) wanted to send a radio signal (that's like a telephone message, but sent entirely without wires) a greater distance they'd send the signal upward at an angle and bounce the signal off the ionosphere to get it to travel further around the earths curvature than one can if just sending the signal in a straight line.

It's a technique still used today as a matter of fact. It works because the ionosphere is just a posh name for the Earths (that's the planet your actually living on, Norval. Remember that) electromagnetic field.

That's because electromagnetic fields refract radio signals.

Now here Norval, you're going to have to concentrate e.x.t.r.a. s.p.e.c.i.a.l.l.y hard because this is going to be a tad difficult and might hurt your poorly brain, but stick with it, this is what we like to think of as a process called Learning Something - which, as we all know, in your case is doubly important on account of how you know so very, very little and what you do know is mostly composed of shit.

Here we go: though spelled quite differently, and so patently throwing your brain in confusion, RADIO WAVES and RADAR WAVES are, in essence, actually the exact same sort of thing.

Infact Norval, they are the exact same thing, just slightly different frequencies thats all, and they behave the same way when encountering electromagnetic fields because....?

Yes! Because the are actually the exact same thing you dip-shit know-nothing sack of crap.

Now Norval, unless I personally kill a beloved member of your family or else, at the very minimum, beak into your home and shit on your carpet you never, under any circumstances, engage me in conversation by referring to me as anything except Mr Anonymous.

Heavy on the Mr, light on the Mous.

Do see that you remember that, theres a good chap.



*Y'see Ophiolite? Its essentially terribly, terribly simple. Of course, the more observant amongst us will be want to note I'm not actually being "ironic" in my addressing our Norval here in the slightest - I'm actually being scathingly sarcastic and extraordinarily insulting with it. But, being Norval, anything less just slides off the the edges of his head.

We can only cut to the cloth we are given.

But y'gets the basic principal.

+ + + + +​

Genn old man, were were we? Ah, yes:

No. 2 isn’t a relevant issue to the discussion (no. 1) because it doesn’t prove no. 1 way or another. But if no. 1 IS proven (and stealth characteristics in the pre-stealth era would be seen to constitute definitive proof, hands down), then any objection raised along the basis of no.2 is swept aside. That it flew doesn’t matter. That it existed does matter.

No Glenn, Issue No 2 is neither irrelevant, nor its it issue No 2 - it's actually issue No 1 and its several posts down the line now and you're still sidestepping the original question "How can disc fly?"

And:

His argument is at tangent to the main issue, yes. But it’s a common debating technique to try to draw discussion off in another direction –

Would be precisely what you're doing in avoiding the basic question.

You know precisely why your doing this Glenn and trying to dress it up as something completely different isn't going to fool anyone except the sort of reader who only reads a topic from the last post on or Norval.

Come to think of it, that would actually be Norval, wouldn't it?

Now, your contention that a Flying Saucer is an extraterrestrial vehicle with an airframe designed to effect stealth characteristics is your contention: "The Dark Star is a UFO with wings" is your position Glenn, no one else's.

Everyone who isn't you actually thinks the Dark Star is actually a Stealth Plane, not actually a UFO at all, but be that as it may...

The fact that you've said repeatedly yourself that the designers of stealth wanted to build an actual flying saucer but had to put wings on it because they needed it to be able to fly, again is a précis of your words G, no one else's.

Thus, in order for a UFO to for fill its function as an actual stealth craft - your position, its ability to fly without sticking the wings on it remains fundamental to the proposition you are proposing.

If it doesn't fly, it simply isn't a vehicle.

So, provide an acceptable aeronautical explanation of how the disc shaped Flying Saucer flies without the wings, tail and engines and you've made your case for a UFO being a stealth craft.

It's absolutely no more difficult than that. After all, you're the chap who knows your stealth and planes. Obviously in thinking this through you must have thought this stuff out and you simply must have concluded that an aeronautical explanation for UFO must actually be possible, otherwise how else could the UFO's shape effect stealth during operation?

Your conjecture regarding UFO shape presents only half the required criteria, kindly pony up with the rest.

 

[btimsah]

i do not belive earth has been visited by aliens.

i have never seen any credible evidence that has held up to scrutiny.


a few lights and few cookie cutter abduction stories are flimsy at best.


where is the hard core proof if they really are here?

The better question is; "Can we find hardcore proof of aliens"?

Stanton Friedman says it best;

The evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft. In other words, SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft. Most are not.

The subject of flying saucers represents a kind of Cosmic Watergate, meaning that some few people in major governments have known since July, 1947, when two crashed saucers and several alien bodies were recovered in New Mexico, that indeed SOME UFOs are ET. As noted in 1950, it's the most classified U.S. topic.

None of the arguments made against conclusions One and Two by a small group of debunkers such as Carl Sagan, my University of Chicago classmate for three years, can stand up to careful scrutiny.

The Flying Saucer story is the biggest story of the millennium: visits to Planet Earth by aliens and the U.S. government's cover-up of the best data (the bodies and wreckage) for over fifty years.

When you have former military and government workers saying that anything UFO/ETI related is above top secret and that they witnessed them - it makes the question for physical proof rather useless - because it's hidden.

So what you need to PROVE is that the physical evidence has been hidden.

 

[Gustav]

Here, let me give you a few pointers....*

question
did you have a bedpost stuck up your ass when you wrote that post?

 

[Light]

The better question is; "Can we find hardcore proof of aliens"?

Stanton Friedman says it best;



When you have former military and government workers saying that anything UFO/ETI related is above top secret and that they witnessed them - it makes the question for physical proof rather useless - because it's hidden.

So what you need to PROVE is that the physical evidence has been hidden.

Ha! That's not how it works at all - it's up to you people who believe in this stuff to prove that it's hidden. All the rest of us have nothing to prove and we are quite happy with that.

And I'll ask the most important question once again: do you actually believe that all the tens of thousands of government/military people that would have to have been involved in such a cover-up for over 50 years could still keep it all a secret? Bull. Someone would have gotten away with real photos, material samples or artifacts to prove their silly claims. But all you have EVER seen is simply people trying to cash in on the attention and doing nothing but talking. Shucks, as evidenced in this forum even Rabon can talk - and prove nothing. A child 10 years old can do that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Shucks, as evidenced in this forum even Rabon can talk - and prove nothing. A child 10 years old can do that.

I must protest in the strongest possible manner at this unwarranted slur. No ten year old child, even one who is intellectually challenged, would be likely to talk so much nonsense.

 

[Gustav]

And I'll ask the most important question once again: do you actually believe that all the tens of thousands of government/military people that would have to have been involved in such a cover-up for over 50 years could still keep it all a secret?

now
if i join the govt/mil now, would i have to participate in the coverup?

hmm
i think a better exercise might be a bit of role playing
transport yourself back 50 yrs
bury all traces and references to ...object a2, classifying it as top secret
come back to the present time

now
who would (have to) be in the know?

 

[Gustav]

light]

are you by any chance alleging that it is impossible to keep secrets in govt?

 

[Gustav]

Someone would have gotten away with real photos, material samples or artifacts to prove their silly claims.

But all you have EVER seen is simply people trying to cash in on the attention and doing nothing but talking.

and the above conclusively contradict the possibilty of et spacecraft?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

question
did you have a bedpost stuck up your ass when you wrote that post?

Curiously, no. We can't all have an anus with capacities equal to yours y'know old man, that would be just... unhygienic.

 

[Light]

now
if i join the govt/mil now, would i have to participate in the coverup?

Of course not. Especially since it (cover-up) doesn't even exist.

hmm
i think a better exercise might be a bit of role playing
transport yourself back 50 yrs
bury all traces and references to ...object a2, classifying it as top secret
come back to the present time

now
who would (have to) be in the know?

IF it really happened you wouldn't have been able to bury it. Do you suppose that you could somehow outwit all the generals and other high-ranking military and political figures that were supposedly involved in it?

 

[Gustav]

Curiously, no. We can't all have an anus with capacities equal to yours y'know old man, that would be just... unhygienic.

oh?
how does..say... a 2 liter asshole be more "unhygenic" than a 1 liter asshole

who is this "we"? are they your butt buddies that occupy the other 3 bedposts?

in anycase i reject your denial as to your anal capacity
that massive diarrhetic discharge that you passed off as a post, could have only been accommodated by a .......super ass!

 

[Light]

light]

are you by any chance alleging that it is impossible to keep secrets in govt?

Beyond a period of time (much less than 50 years), yes.

 

[Light]

and the above conclusively contradict the possibilty of et spacecraft?

The real truth is that you can never disprove a negative. And so far no one has positively proven it.

 

[Gustav]

Of course not. Especially since it (cover-up) doesn't even exist.

IF it really happened you wouldn't have been able to bury it. Do you suppose that you could somehow outwit all the generals and other high-ranking military and political figures that were supposedly involved in it?

either you do not understand what was asked or you simply avoid

what is your understanding of military culture?
i would say you havent a clue
for instance..
how do you figure "outwit"?
give me examples and convince me that this is how the miltary/govt works

 

[Gustav]

Beyond a period of time (much less than 50 years), yes.

hmm
i know of the declassification protocols
do you however know for a fact that everything is made public?

do you know of anything that might be kept secret?
if so, why?

 

[Light]

either you do not understand what was asked or you simply avoid

what is your understanding of military culture?
i would say you havent a clue
for instance..
how do you figure "outwit"?
give me examples and convince me that this is how the miltary/govt works

I'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand and I'm not avoiding anything at all.

I've no idea about your background but I understand military culture very well, having spent a fair amount of time inside it. Have you?

By "outwit", I mean attempting to thwart their knowledge of such information and attempting to destroy evidence in THEIR possession. (Assuming it even existed in the first place.)

Now it's your turn. Precisely what do you mean concerning "this is how the military and government work"? Did I claim any specific principles? What do you want explained to you?