UFO Evidence that demands a verdict ...

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Joe Rogan’s Recent podcast with Bob Lazar is pretty compelling. I’m pretty agnostic re UFO’s, but Lazar seems pretty credible, and if true- that the US has several functional alien craft- his is the story of the century

I hadn't seen the Rogan interview and haven't watched all of it yet, but for those interested here is a link:



It is hard to watch this and conclude that this is a hoax. If so these guys are very, very good.

I could see someone like Lazar being selected because he would be easy to discredit if he went rogue. It would be much harder for a prominent scientist. Perhaps this is one aspect of why progress has been slow, if that claim is true.

One thing I did not know is the claim that at least one of these craft were obtained from an archeological dig. That seems more viable than obtaining whole craft from a crash or some sort of friendly landing. It also fits with the possibility that the planet was abandoned at some point. Severe and sudden climate change could have been the cause.

 

[Pocky]

Bob Lazar is a phony and Joe Rogan fell for it. Lazar has had help over the years from some friends he had well before he went public with his story about working at an alleged secret facility in the Nevada desert. The essence of a good con is to get other people to tell your story and the best people to do this appear as neutral parties. Bob had a lot of help from John Lear and George Knapp, both of whom he knew well before the UFO business.
Bob’s story is often at serious odds with the verifiable details of his life, and whenever this happens the explanation of the government trying to erase his past is usually invoked. Bob’s claimed educational record is unverifiable, but some of what is verifiable absolutely does not match with his story. You don’t get into schools like MIT and Cal Tech if you finish in the bottom third of you high school class and attend a community college and a correspondence school. The same goes for much of his personal life ; important details that don’t match and significant items omitted.
Then there are the scientific details of his story. Bob talks about Element 115 and how it produces gravity waves that are amplified with energy from a matter - antimatter reactor to produce what amounts to a space time distortion in which the craft travels. On the face of it, this sounds possibly reasonable to explain some things. But Bob says there are two kinds of gravity waves, one that operates over long distances and one that operates at atomic radius distances. The claim of short range gravity waves is certainly not experimentally provable by modern physics, so the only people who would know about it would be those who are reverse engineering UFO’s. If he wants to be believed, Bob should explain how they figured this out. He doesn’t.

I think the idea is, if he’s to be believed, he was only there a couple weeks in the 80’s, and even then, the technology was so advanced they’d made very little progress. In other words, he can’t explain anything.

I’d love to read up on the debunking of this guy. Was he truly bottom 3rd in high school? He is on a phone directory list at Area 51, but obviously no record of him at MIT or Cal Tech. You’d think it would be easy to furnish a record of any kind.

 

[Pocky]

A couple YouTube videos later, including the amazing randy I think his name is, pretty thoroughly debunk this guy.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

For those that missed the Tucker Carlson Trump interview yesterday on UFOs, here is a synopsis:

• Briefed on UFOs but does not want to comment on the briefing.
• "Not a believer" and "doubts they are real"
• Admitted to seeing segments done by FOX on UFOs (assuming it included the TicTac incident and Commander Fravor's testimony)
• Has not been told that the government "has wreckage"

How does someone "doubt they are real" when there is clear video evidence, radar evidence of the same events, and eye witness testimony of highly credible witnesses to go along with that evidence? I guess when you're Donald Trump you can say just about anything and no one will take you seriously anyway. [I think many take this stance just to protect their World View.]

Nick Pope, a former British government official in charge of investigating UFO incidents, then gets on the show and says he's grateful that Trump didn't just make light of the matter. I saw it as merely more of the same government dribble -- "... nothing to see here," despite reams of evidence and testimony.

To be clear, I am not necessarily a fan of the Carlson show. I don't align with many of the Fox Right Wing views. I don't aspire to the Puritanism and Global Police stance of The Right, and I certainly don't hold to the beliefs of The Left, who must think money falls from the sky.

Regarding the "Revelation" episode of the "Unidentified..." History Channel Series, this show presented material from the Italians, who have catalogued thousands of incidents going back more than a century. In particular there was an incident, with photographic support, of a UFO chasing a military helicopter. The UFO reportedly shot some sort of beam that damaged the helicopter's rotor wing.

 

[L.A.Lion]

Bob Lazar is a phony and Joe Rogan fell for it. Lazar has had help over the years from some friends he had well before he went public with his story about working at an alleged secret facility in the Nevada desert.

There's nothing "alleged" about the existence of the Groom Lake facility. It's a fact, It can be seen on Google Maps and has been acknowledged to exist by the government on more than one occasion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/government-now-admits-theres-area-51/312054/

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

There's nothing "alleged" about the existence of the Groom Lake facility. It's a fact, It can be seen on Google Maps and has been acknowledged to exist by the government on more than one occasion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/government-now-admits-theres-area-51/312054/

I believe what is "alleged" per the Lazar story is the S4 site, where Lazar claims there were hangers cut into a hillside that housed 9 craft. S4 is a bit southwest of Area 51 (Groom Lake). Per Lazar one would fly into the Groom Lake facility and then take a bus to the S4 site.

 

[83wuzme]

I believe what is "alleged" per the Lazar story is the S4 site, where Lazar claims there were hangers cut into a hillside that housed 9 craft. S4 is a bit southwest of Area 51 (Groom Lake). Per Lazar one would fly into the Groom Lake facility and then take a bus to the S4 site.

I think the S-4 site story has not been verified. I believe there were people who trespassed onto the base before the government acquired more land and tightened security. They were close enough to the alleged facility to see it, even though it was camoflaged, but saw nothing that Lazar had claimed.
People should question Lazar and his claims because they are so far removed from typical experiences. Lazar could silence many of his doubters by producing some sort of knowledge or evidence that is outside our current science and technology. The claims he has about element 115 are not verifiable because no stable isotopes have been created at any facilities to this point, and even if it were possible, it would probably only be a few atoms. His assertions about 115 flatly contradict things that have been experimentally determined at the subatomic level, so for him to even claim to understand how the gravity generator functioned he would need to have a theoretical understanding that is completely alien to current science. He would probably be able to provide some vital help to the theoretical physicists working on the Grand Unified Theory.
One thing he could do, which would be relatively simple, would be to work with an engineer to create a replica of the hatch on the craft, which he said was a simple, yet counterintuitive design that he “ totally understood “. If there was no analog or previous similar design to something like this it would immediately boost his credibility. He has had over thirty years to do this.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

For those that missed the Tucker Carlson Trump interview yesterday on UFOs, here is a synopsis:

• Briefed on UFOs but does not want to comment on the briefing.
• "Not a believer" and "doubts they are real"
• Admitted to seeing segments done by FOX on UFOs (assuming it included the TicTac incident and Commander Fravor's testimony)
• Has not been told that the government "has wreckage"

How does someone "doubt they are real" when there is clear video evidence, radar evidence of the same events, and eye witness testimony of highly credible witnesses to go along with that evidence? I guess when you're Donald Trump you can say just about anything and no one will take you seriously anyway. [I think many take this stance just to protect their World View.]

Because he was probably briefed that we may have faulty tracking equipment and how that is going to be fixed.

and/or

He was probably briefed on what type of weapons we are secretly testing.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

If they are aliens, wouldn't they have radar eluding craft? We have such craft and we are a long way from interstellar travel

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Just watched the Netfix documentary and Joe Rogan’s Interview. The fact the Los Alomos lab denied him working there when there is proof he did raises an eyebrow. I can see the FBI in the 80’s wiping his records since they were all paper based. He does appear to know what he is talking about too. You just never know with these story but this is 30 years now.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Because he was probably briefed that we may have faulty tracking equipment and how that is going to be fixed.

and/or

He was probably briefed on what type of weapons we are secretly testing.

It's one thing to try and hide this with a ridiculous claim of "faulty tracking equipment." It's quite another to make that claim on top of independent radar, and the notion that our Top Gun pilots -- multiple pilots, at multiple angles -- can't tell the difference between some type of flying craft and a mirage.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

IThe claims he has about element 115 are not verifiable because no stable isotopes have been created at any facilities to this point, and even if it were possible, it would probably only be a few atoms. His assertions about 115 flatly contradict things that have been experimentally determined at the subatomic level, so for him to even claim to understand how the gravity generator functioned he would need to have a theoretical understanding that is completely alien to current science.

I'm a chemical engineer and not a physicist. Not sure why you think it "probable" that only a few atoms would be possible just because we have been unsuccessful to date. The observed flight capabilities suggest that we are dealing with technology that is far in advance of our own.

Did he really claim to understand how this anti-gravity generator worked from a theoretical standpoint, or was it merely an understanding of what this thing could do by observation? I gathered it was closer to the latter from the various interviews. He called it anti-gravity but maybe it is really something else.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

If they are aliens, wouldn't they have radar eluding craft? We have such craft and we are a long way from interstellar travel

1) Why should they care about eluding radar?

2) I would think the shape and material of these craft were chosen to deal with its speed through different mediums and not deflecting radar. When speeds like this are possible would showing up on radar really matter? If you can deflect objects with a force-field does it matter? Consider what happened during the 1942 Battle of Los Angeles. 1400 projectiles were ineffective.

 

[83wuzme]

I'm a chemical engineer and not a physicist. Not sure why you think it "probable" that only a few atoms would be possible just because we have been unsuccessful to date. The observed flight capabilities suggest that we are dealing with technology that is far in advance of our own.

Did he really claim to understand how this anti-gravity generator worked from a theoretical standpoint, or was it merely an understanding of what this thing could do by observation? I gathered it was closer to the latter from the various interviews. He called it anti-gravity but maybe it is really something else.

Lazar absolutely claimed the craft made use of a gravitational envelope and that element 115 provided both the gravity waves and was also used in a matter - antimatter generator that provided the energy to accomplish this. He provided some basic details as to how this worked but fewer details as to how they figured it out.
It requires an enormous amount of energy for researches to make just a few atoms of 115. These atoms were unstable and their decay was tracked in a matter of milliseconds. Lazar claimed that the stable 115 isotope has 184 neutrons. The 115 that was made recently at a couple of facilities was well short of 184. It might be possible that the 299 isotope with the additional neutrons is stable. This sometimes happens with heavier elements due to the fundamental forces that operate at the atomic scale to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion of protons in the nucleus. We just don’t know yet and some people who know about this stuff say it is unlikely that any isotope of 115 is stable for any significant length of time.
The bullshit claim by Lazar is the business about there being “ two different types of gravity waves “. That has never been experimentally verified or theoretically predicted. So, that means if it is true, he learned this by exposure to E.T. technology, and if so, he would need to explain exactly how this was learned. As far as I know, he never has.
Joe Rogan does not know about this stuff, but he does occasionally have real scientists on his show that would be able to ask Bob some pretty hard questions on the subject that would expose him. My guess is that Lazar would never agree to be on a show with a legitimate scientist. But Rogan could have had somebody on a week later and quizzed him about Lazar’s claims. As far as I know, that did not happen.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

It's one thing to try and hide this with a ridiculous claim of "faulty tracking equipment." It's quite another to make that claim on top of independent radar, and the notion that our Top Gun pilots -- multiple pilots, at multiple angles -- can't tell the difference between some type of flying craft and a mirage.

SMH

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Lazar absolutely claimed the craft made use of a gravitational envelope and that element 115 provided both the gravity waves and was also used in a matter - antimatter generator that provided the energy to accomplish this. He provided some basic details as to how this worked but fewer details as to how they figured it out.
It requires an enormous amount of energy for researches to make just a few atoms of 115. These atoms were unstable and their decay was tracked in a matter of milliseconds. Lazar claimed that the stable 115 isotope has 184 neutrons. The 115 that was made recently at a couple of facilities was well short of 184. It might be possible that the 299 isotope with the additional neutrons is stable. This sometimes happens with heavier elements due to the fundamental forces that operate at the atomic scale to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion of protons in the nucleus. We just don’t know yet and some people who know about this stuff say it is unlikely that any isotope of 115 is stable for any significant length of time.
The bullshit claim by Lazar is the business about there being “ two different types of gravity waves “. That has never been experimentally verified or theoretically predicted. So, that means if it is true, he learned this by exposure to E.T. technology, and if so, he would need to explain exactly how this was learned. As far as I know, he never has.
Joe Rogan does not know about this stuff, but he does occasionally have real scientists on his show that would be able to ask Bob some pretty hard questions on the subject that would expose him. My guess is that Lazar would never agree to be on a show with a legitimate scientist. But Rogan could have had somebody on a week later and quizzed him about Lazar’s claims. As far as I know, that did not happen.

I place the Lazar story into the category of "testimony" that is without evidential support, and by a witness with low credibility. That doesn't prove the story false, it just lessens its contribution towards answering the question of whether these craft are what they appear to be: Something "not of this earth."

Lazar is at this point almost a distraction. If his (testimony) is ever proven to be fraudulent then it will undoubtedly lead some to believe that all UFO (evidence) is fraudulent. That would be unfortunate.

On the other hand, Lazar could be telling the truth but unable to convey it well. He actually said it best:

How would a medieval scientist describe the workings of a modern nuclear reactor if given nothing more than the reactor itself? He would not be able to reproduce it. He might use terms of the day, like "magic."

Is Lazar's description of something far beyond our current science any different? Are the (perhaps speculative) terms he uses -- the vocabulary of current science -- any worse?​

 

[PAgeologist]

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is thought of as a failed planet due to mostly Jupiter's gravatational forces.

Mars has rocks that exhibit imbrication. Which is only known by us to occur in the presence of moving water.

 

[91Joe95]

So who here is planning on storming Area 51? Apparently there's a meetup at the gift shop's brothel.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hun...orm-area-51-to-see-them-aliens-180211786.html

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

For those that didn't see the Unidentified series on the History Channel, or want more info on the Nimitz encounter, there is this ...

 

[lein]

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

So let's see if I understand:

• Our most advanced radar systems are confusing unidentified aircraft with swamp gas.
• Our most highly trained naval pilots can't distinguish aircraft from swamp gas.
• The U.S. Government immediately confiscates any recordings of swamp gas.

 

[MedDawg]

Would they necessarily recognize the White House as anything significant? Why not land at an Eat'n Park and hold a press conference?

They'll land in Beaver Stadium during a whiteout, of course. When they hear "WE ARE...PENN STATE!" they will assume that we are welcoming them to planet Penn State.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

They'll land in Beaver Stadium during a whiteout, of course. When they hear "WE ARE...PENN STATE!" they will assume that we are welcoming them to planet Penn State.

Sadly, I think they have a tendency to land in the oceans. I'd bet on San Diego State before we see anything at Penn State.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

This is a couple of weeks old, but for those who don't follow the subject, there does seem to be some congressional traction now ...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-w...-over-reports-of-ufo-sightings-by-navy-pilots

And yet, most in society still feel the topic isn't important. We'd rather press for more windmills than press for advanced technology being demonstrated within our own airspace....that if not alien, is being withheld from society, likely for strategic, military advantage.

 

[tboyer]

I just can't put too much stock in eyewitness testimony. If we believed eyewitness testimony, we'd believe in Bigfoot. I think most people in the Catholic Church accept that the stories of the Saints are not to be taken literally, but almost all those stories could be said to be backed up by eyewitness testimony. People sometimes see what they want to see. And sometimes people just see stuff for no reason at all.

 

[Woodpecker]

It's the offseason and I think we need some interesting things to discuss.

My first link is a couple of years old (about a West Coast incident in 2004). I don't know if it was discussed here at the time.

View embedded media

I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who think UFOs are something other than alien spacecraft. Please offer a hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Here's a more recent (2015) incident that occurred off the East Coast:

View embedded media

And a New York Times article that some consider "disclosure" ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

Some Ufologists believe that the older incidents, before the digital age of being able to easily doctor photographs and video, provide more compelling evidence. To me some of the strongest "evidence" is the witness testimony -- when those witnesses are independent, a large group, and seeing essentially the same thing from different angles. This would be true of the Chicago O'hare incident, the "Phoenix Lights," and some others outside of the U.S., such as the Westall UFO(s) at an Australian school. What's interesting about the school incident is that "men in suits" arrived shortly afterwards to confiscate any photography and silence/threaten witnesses.

Here is some discussion on Westall by Richard Dolan (with his hot, much younger wife), beginning at about 37 minutes. There are some other compelling incidents discussed in this program, but with fewer witnesses.

View embedded media

Some of the better "testimony," in my opinion, is in not just the account of the incident, but in the human reactions that occurred during the incident, as well as the emotions when revisiting the topic afterwards. Let's be clear. There is a difference between testimony and evidence. For testimony we are left to decide whether it is credible based on witness factors -- stature, reputation, motives, number of witnesses, reactions, etc.

I do have opinions on some of the more recent UFO researchers that you might find appearing in online videos and documentaries. My opinions cover a range, from those I see as outright shysters to those that I think get some things right and others wrong. With Dolan I am mixed. I'll leave further comment in this area to a later post.

The bottom line is that there is considerable evidence that supports the notion that we are not the most intelligent form of life currently inhabiting this planet. That should be very compelling in itself. The problem is that this topic tends to get dominated by charlatans and scammers. If we include those charged with debunking the evidence, it's no wonder that the issue never gains the traction that it deserves. In some ways, the forces at work are very similar to those that sustained the False Narrative at PSU.

Looks like a lot of clouds for "a clear, perfect day".

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I just can't put too much stock in eyewitness testimony. If we believed eyewitness testimony, we'd believe in Bigfoot. I think most people in the Catholic Church accept that the stories of the Saints are not to be taken literally, but almost all those stories could be said to be backed up by eyewitness testimony. People sometimes see what they want to see. And sometimes people just see stuff for no reason at all.

This response clearly shows that you have not looked at many incidents closely, nor with much thought. But I'm not surprised. We don't want to think about stuff we find intolerable. We want to preserve the comfort of our bubble, our view of the world. What we were taught is true.

Here we have concurrent video and instrumentation evidence, aligned with the testimony of multiple highly trained observers, people that can even be cross-examined. And yet, what happened must be something else, because, well, we are at the top of the food chain.

 

[LionJim]

This response clearly shows that you have not looked at many incidents closely, nor with much thought.

Sorry, but when you talk about the “Battle” of Los Angeles as you did earlier in this thread, I have to say the same thing about you. Alien visits to Earth might or might not have occurred, but to point to this incident as being evidence is ridiculous, IMHO. You lost all credibility with me with that mention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Sorry, but when you talk about the “Battle” of Los Angeles as you did earlier in this thread, I have to say the same thing about you. Alien visits to Earth might or might not have occurred, but to point to this incident as being evidence is ridiculous, IMHO. You lost all credibility with me with that mention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

I am not the one who needs credibility. I am not one of the witnesses. I am merely linking some of the reports.

I linked the radio broadcast of the Battle of Los Angeles in response to another poster's link. During WW2 there were claims from bomber groups that they were being shadowed by so-called foo-fighter objects. Neither side had the capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

Electrostatic charge, ball lighting, disoriented pilots? At the time such explanations might have had traction, but now we have better video. Was an Iranian jet fighter pilot chasing ball lighting? I tend to doubt it.

And why cite the Battle of Los Angeles, just one story, and not address those with strong video and radar evidence that aligns with multiple witness accounts, such as the much more recent Nimitz Encounters? Why attack the weakest evidence and not the strongest? Only one event needs to be real. Can you discount all of the accounts presented at the 2001 National Press Club Meeting?

The weaker stories gain traction when we consider them in light of the much stronger events. We could more readily discount the weaker events if the stronger events could be explained. But they cannot. No reasonable explanation to date, for example, has been assigned to the Phoenix Lights incident. None of the official explanations can account for the photographs and movement of the object.

I find TBOYER's response rather typical. Folks would readily attack UFO eyewitness accounts, but then hold to religious beliefs, where there is no video evidence, only witness accounts handed down over centuries. Are people who disbelieve the reality of UFOs also people who are atheists or agnostics? It is probably quite the opposite. Most don't want to believe that UFOs are demonstrating technology that we do not have. We want to believe that which makes us comfortable and keeps our world in order.

For the record I am not an atheist. I think there is evidence of life after death (through NDE accounts of physical events while unconscious, not necessarily through religious text). But I do think many of these UFO incidents are exactly what they appear to be.

I'd like to think that I have an open mind, that our understanding of the seen and unseen is far from complete.

At one time the world was flat and the earth revolved around the sun.

 

[Nit Nolte]

I thought the Phoenix incidents were explained. No?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

 

[LionJim]

I am not the one who needs credibility. I am not one of the witnesses. I am merely linking some of the reports.

I linked the radio broadcast of the Battle of Los Angeles in response to another poster's link. During WW2 there were claims from bomber groups that they were being shadowed by so-called foo-fighter objects. Neither side had the capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

Electrostatic charge, ball lighting, disoriented pilots? At the time such explanations might have had traction, but now we have better video. Was an Iranian jet fighter pilot chasing ball lighting? I tend to doubt it.

And why cite the Battle of Los Angeles, just one story, and not address those with strong video and radar evidence that aligns with multiple witness accounts, such as the much more recent Nimitz Encounters? Why attack the weakest evidence and not the strongest? Only one event needs to be real. Can you discount all of the accounts presented at the 2001 National Press Club Meeting?

The weaker stories gain traction when we consider them in light of the much stronger events. We could more readily discount the weaker events if the stronger events could be explained. But they cannot. No reasonable explanation to date, for example, has been assigned to the Phoenix Lights incident. None of the official explanations can account for the photographs and movement of the object.

I find TBOYER's response rather typical. Folks would readily attack UFO eyewitness accounts, but then hold to religious beliefs, where there is no video evidence, only witness accounts handed down over centuries. Are people who disbelieve the reality of UFOs also people who are atheists or agnostics? It is probably quite the opposite. Most don't want to believe that UFOs are demonstrating technology that we do not have. We want to believe that which makes us comfortable and keeps our world in order.

For the record I am not an atheist. I think there is evidence of life after death (through NDE accounts of physical events while unconscious, not necessarily through religious text). But I do think many of these UFO incidents are exactly what they appear to be.

I'd like to think that I have an open mind, that our understanding of the seen and unseen is far from complete.

At one time the world was flat and the earth revolved around the sun.

Read my post again. I did not discount the possibility that extraterrestrials have visited Earth. I simply stated that anyone who cites the “Battle” of Los Angeles as evidence loses all credibility in my book. What this means as far as this thread is concerned is that I’m going to consider any evidence you provide with a lot more caution than I normally would.

 

[cntblvitsbutter]

I've had 2 incidents where I've seen "UFOs." One was in the early 90's, driving at night on the Garden State Pkwy in NJ. Driving with a friend, at some point we noticed a lighted, egg-shaped orb that seemed to be going as fast as us (70mph) at distance of maybe 2-300 yards, above some hills. After a couple of minutes, it accelerated straight ahead of us and disappeared. My friend and I both commented that was completely lit, like a light bulb, but the light was almost matte, not glowing.

The second happened in early 2000s, while vacationing with a bunch of friends on the Outer Banks in NC. There were 2 dots, one green and the other red that kept circling our house for about an hour. They made no noise at all. We couldn't tell what distance they were, but if I had to guess I'd say maybe a mile or two. They kept circling in formation at speeds that I thought were to high to be a helicopter. Sometimes they stayed a solid color and other times they would blink as if they were communicating with each other. They would also just stop in an instant and change the direction they were circling. We were completely mesmerized watching these lights. At some point, they just stopped and zoomed off into the horizon. Still stunned, a little while later (maybe a minute or two), two jets came flying over our house to the direction where the dots had disappeared to. One jet was a military cargo jet. Not sure what type. Again if I had to guess it was a C-17, because it definitely had 4 jet engines but wasn't a Galaxy. The other jet was an F-16, which I recognized it's distinctive profile and 1 jet engine.

FWIW, seeing is believing, especially for my friends who were with me in NC who I had been telling stories about my previous UFO sighting and had always poo-pooed it as seeing things.

 

[LemonEars]

They'll land in Beaver Stadium during a whiteout, of course. When they hear "WE ARE...PENN STATE!" they will assume that we are welcoming them to planet Penn State.

There is a rumor that aliens have often landed at Heinz Field during pitt football games but nobody was there and awake to see them.

 

[83wuzme]

I just can't put too much stock in eyewitness testimony. If we believed eyewitness testimony, we'd believe in Bigfoot. I think most people in the Catholic Church accept that the stories of the Saints are not to be taken literally, but almost all those stories could be said to be backed up by eyewitness testimony. People sometimes see what they want to see. And sometimes people just see stuff for no reason at all.

Eyewitness testimony is not worthless. If it were, it would be practically impossible for any of us to get through the day, never mind retaining the lessons from our most significant experiences. Skeptic Michael Shermer made much of his career about discrediting eyewitness testimony. I would like to ask him, if his wife were murdered and the available circumstantial evidence pointed to him as the murderer, would he accept the conviction of a jury without question, even if he had absolutely no memory of murdering her ?
It would be fairer to say that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, especially over increasing periods of time. This is why debriefings and recordings as soon after the fact as possible are more valuable than suppressed memories than resurface years later, or stories that are periodically retold and reinterpreted.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Read my post again. I did not discount the possibility that extraterrestrials have visited Earth. I simply stated that anyone who cites the “Battle” of Los Angeles as evidence loses all credibility in my book. What this means as far as this thread is concerned is that I’m going to consider any evidence you provide with a lot more caution than I normally would.

As you should. Weigh the evidence based on the source and the content. I am not the source. I am merely linking information and at times expressing an opinion. Yours may differ. You don't have to accept what is opinion.

That said. This thread started with the naval encounters post-2000, when it became exposed in the mainstream media and recent documentaries. I don't know how anyone can refute what is in the public domain from these incidents. Why would there be presidential and congressional briefings? It is these most recent events (2004 and 2015) that has me leaning towards accepting what Ufologists claim regarding older events. The older photos are probably more credible since it was harder to forge such things prior to the digital age.

As for the Phoenix Lights, I'm not buying the flare explanation.

 

[22buck]

The "Nimitz incident" has held my attention for years. The lead guy involved, Cmdr David Fravor, wasn't just any pilot. He was a decorated squadron commander and Top Gun graduate. Interestingly, he was featured in the PBS documentary "Carrier", which was filmed a few years after the UFO incident. There was no mention of the UFO in "Carrier" but there's a good segment on Fravor taking off at night to fly fuel up to pilots who kept missing trying to land on the heavily pitching deck in very bad weather. Favor was the last guy to land that night and had no one to fly fuel up to him. He nailed his landing on his first attempt.

If anyone is interested go to Youtube and search for "Carrier pitching deck". There are 2 parts, each 10 minutes long... part 2 is Fravor taking off and landing. When a guy like that talks about UFOs it has my attention.

Edit: Here's the link to part 2 showing Fravor taking off at the beginning and then getting back aboard at the end:

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Sorry, but when you talk about the “Battle” of Los Angeles as you did earlier in this thread, I have to say the same thing about you. Alien visits to Earth might or might not have occurred, but to point to this incident as being evidence is ridiculous, IMHO. You lost all credibility with me with that mention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

Just curious, have you considered information outside of the wikipedia article pertinent to this event? It seems the "Ufology" section is rather incomplete. It simply attempts to discredit the infamous photograph, and places a blanket disqualification of witness reports as being "hopelessly at variance." That "research" doesn't seem particularly deep.

We should expect viewer discrepancies in a night sky that contained planes and bursting shells, but this article suggests that a large craft was not only visible, but made purposeful flight ...

https://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/02/eyewitness-account-of-battle-of-los.html

Do you consider Littleton a fraud, or that he and others mistook a single, large craft for a collection of smaller objects in synchronized nighttime flight? If some sort of synchronized flight, how was this done using systems available during the 1940s? How did the object(s) remain in the air while motionless? Shrapnel would have punctured balloon(s).

 

[pandaczar12]

Eyewitness testimony is not worthless. If it were, it would be practically impossible for any of us to get through the day, never mind retaining the lessons from our most significant experiences. Skeptic Michael Shermer made much of his career about discrediting eyewitness testimony. I would like to ask him, if his wife were murdered and the available circumstantial evidence pointed to him as the murderer, would he accept the conviction of a jury without question, even if he had absolutely no memory of murdering her ?
It would be fairer to say that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, especially over increasing periods of time. This is why debriefings and recordings as soon after the fact as possible are more valuable than suppressed memories than resurface years later, or stories that are periodically retold and reinterpreted.

I once saw a 2-3 second glimpse of a UFO through a foggy mirror. At least I think it was a UFO, it definitively was of an unidentified nature.

 

[step.eng69]

Interesting read: Area 51 & Janet

link: Area 51 https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a24152/area-51-history/

link: Janet No, it's not a UFO. It's actually the semi-secret contract commuter airline using the call-sign "Janet" that transports workers from Las Vegas's McCarran Airport to the base.

DigitalGlobeGetty Images
The Real Story Behind the Myth of Area 51
There are no aliens at America's most famous top-secret military base, but what is there is just as interesting.

By Matt Blitz
Jul 17, 2019

 

[83wuzme]

I once saw a 2-3 second glimpse of a UFO through a foggy mirror. At least I think it was a UFO, it definitively was of an unidentified nature.

Were you shaving at the time ?