He’s simply asking for proof, or some science based idea that says advanced alien civilizations are commonplace.
THIS is proof of mystery flying objects, including black triangular ones 😱 , flashing lights, etc.
View from B-52 Bomber: Russian Jets Dangerously Buzz & NATO-Ukrainian Jets Escort (Aug-Sept 2020) - YouTube
And yes, it satisfies me about their reality.
Now :
Seven-hundred-thirty-events (at least and by own admission)
Advanced-US Navy-Pilots 🙄
Flying "the best Plane in the World" (at least they brag about it) 🙄
Hey, this was World War ONE:
Not only ground objects but flying ones too.
Notice the sharpness of the image. 1918!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To make UFOlogists happy, they even had ....... TIC TACS!!!!!!!!!!
Just posting this for the normal Forum Members, not wasting time on diehard fanatics. 🙄
This thread is veering more and more into a Religious discussion, we all know how that ends.
View from B-52 Bomber: Russian Jets Dangerously Buzz & NATO-Ukrainian Jets Escort (Aug-Sept 2020) - YouTube
And yes, it satisfies me about their reality.
Now :
which means, .... let's see .... at least 2*365=730 events ..... and all they can come out with is this crap?
Seven-hundred-thirty-events (at least and by own admission)
Advanced-US Navy-Pilots 🙄
Flying "the best Plane in the World" (at least they brag about it) 🙄
Hey, this was World War ONE:
Not only ground objects but flying ones too.
Notice the sharpness of the image. 1918!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To make UFOlogists happy, they even had ....... TIC TACS!!!!!!!!!!
Just posting this for the normal Forum Members, not wasting time on diehard fanatics. 🙄
This thread is veering more and more into a Religious discussion, we all know how that ends.
Have a look at his post 1102, and then tell me if there is any point in providing “proof”.
Basically his post amounts to denial of military video footage. He says there isn’t sufficient proof that there is an unidentified flying object in the footage, which is nonsensical, because there is obviously a flying object that is not identified in the video. Is he suggesting the tic tac footage is of an errant blimp from the last century?
So it’s okay to use our current physics, which unquestionably does not explain all physical phenomena, to prove or disprove the existence of something, but eyewitness reports from highly trained military sources that include video and telemetry are insufficient evidence to prove that something unidentified was seen? Is he suggesting that the pilots knew what they were looking at so it wasn’t unidentified? Is he suggesting that the pilots actually saw a blimp? Is he suggesting that the video is fake?
Last edited:
The tic tac is far away, moving fast and without distinguishing features. It is unidentified. The video linked is of planes flying nearby at matching speeds. Planes that have distinguishing features and can be identified. This video proves absolutely nothing.
Unless you are suggesting a time travelling blimp, by definition it is unidentified so at you can't rule out it being a blimp. And blimp is still a valid word, not anachronistic. They are not uncommon in the current era.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I thought there was a video somewhere showing some science being applied to the navy footage and concluding that the tic tac was very likely not moving any faster than a blimp but only appearing to do so because of relative speed etc.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
That young chap has perfectly unruffled hair and he looks relaxed, must be parked in a hangar shot - if I was in that rickety old plane during an actual flight, I’d look like a man filling his shorts…
What evidence? I looked at some of your links. I even looked up some stuff on my own, to bring myself up to speed.
I thought I made it clear that there are standards for evidence I would accept. Claims are not evidence. Scientifically verifiable evidence is the only evidence I accept. So, if you could provide any evidence that meets that criteria, then we could talk about it.
And I don't deny the possibility of anything. There could be aircraft from space. There could be ETs. But there isn't much reason to give it any thought, in my opinion. I deal with demonstrable reality.
I don't know what more you could ask for. Maybe you should think about the emotional attachment you have to this stuff, and your zeal in proselytizing about it. It sure looks like religion to me.
Notice how you were mocked for asking for evidence, again.
Notice how I was called unprofessional for asking for evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you found the proof. Congratulations. Now that those mystery flying objects are no longer mystery, who else are you going to alert about changing the term from UFO to IFO?
Yeah, especially when a poster believes that someone on this forum claimed that UFOs are E.T. origin and keeps asking for proof.
Good grief, you call people emotional and then post hysteric bs like this. Do you own a mirror?
Unfortunately this thread isn’t about you or JMFahey and the sort of evidence you demand. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence for the phenomenon including first-hand experiences from military and government officials. Multiple eyewitness, radar telemetry all going back to the invention of such equipment. We have documents unearthed through archival research and FOIA requests demonstrating how seriously the UFO phenomenon was and is taken by the military. This is all basic, low-hanging UFOlogy 101 and The Phenomenon is a very good primer.
Notice how the standard for evidence has been dodged, again.
I'm telling you, this is how religious apologetics works. Same stuff.
Well I'm just saying buddy that if you want to sell this stuff to this particular crowd, then you might want to think about tailoring it to your audience.
The post was about your own hysterical post. I see you dodged a question, again. 🙄
The smart ones can figure it out on their own just fine. This is not a university and I am not paid by your parents to coddle you, so the last thing I’m going to do is spoonfeed armchair pseudoskeptics who can’t debate coherently.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.