(Dec 16, 2018 08:36 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 16, 2018 05:59 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:That picture is obviously grainy, poorly lit, and, at best, at an unknown distance. Witnesses are unreliable, even just in their estimation of time, and a B2 could be coming toward the camera, where engines are pretty quiet until an aircraft passes the viewer, i.e. the engines are facing you.
Notice the massive difference.
We go by the eyewitness's account, not by what others like you say who weren't there and who seek only to disprove ufos. As I already pointed out, there's no fuselage on the ufo, and it was hovering in place for 2-3 minutes making no noise. A stealth bomber would've flown in and out of there within 10 seconds. Also the eyewitness talks about the blurry turbulence underneath the ufo. This is a common detail often reported with ufos, particularly with black triangles. I don't expect you to know this, but that is what happens and what is observed. I'm sorry it upsets you that ufos exist, but they do. And this is only one of thousands of eyewitness accounts. You'll cope with this somehow. Life will go on.
No, we don't. We don't just accept a witness account, in science, in law, or when sane people are being asked to believe something without any firsthand, or multiple corroborating, evidence they can assess for themselves. As YOU'VE already demonstrated, you thought you saw a full-sized aircraft, with fuselage, cabin, and engines, when it was actually only a drone, that was much closer, smaller, and without fuselage, cabin, and engines. And as demonstrated, jets don't make much noise at a distance when coming toward an observer.
Wait, now you're claiming it's a "black triangle"? You do know what else is a black triangle, right?
And he actually said "a sort of wavy-ness of the air surrounding the object", which is expected of jets, not turbulence underneath it.
![[Image: 14207532542_c25fb1c0fb_b.jpg]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5314/14207532542_c25fb1c0fb_b.jpg)
Common details of UFO reports available to anyone is no surprise. That's why police investigations keep details confidential, so they can use them to assess the credibility of any witnesses, thus corroborating their story.
Again, for the umpteenth time, UFOs exist. Your repeated and desperate attempt to make that straw man just illustrates you're need to justify your beliefs. You're the only one who feels the need to equivocate "unidentified flying object" as necessarily not man-made, when "unidentified" cannot possibly rule that out. Remember that Chinese lantern you were sure was a UFO? It was a UFO because you couldn't identify it, and would have been man-made, even if you never did identify it (which didn't seem likely without my skepticism).
Studies have established that the majority of UFO observations are misidentified conventional objects or natural phenomena—most commonly aircraft, balloons, noctilucent clouds, nacreous clouds, or astronomical objects such as meteors or bright planets with a small percentage even being hoaxes. Between 5% and 20% of reported sightings are not explained, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense. While proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) suggest that these unexplained reports are of alien spacecraft, the null hypothesis cannot be excluded that these reports are simply other more prosaic phenomena that cannot be identified due to lack of complete information or due to the necessary subjectivity of the reports.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentifi...ct#Studies
Still in denial of ufos I see. We've gone from drone to stealth bomber to jet fighter in the space of 2 pages now. What next? Swamp gas? Like I said, we go by what the eyewitness reports, always. We do not change their accounts to suit our conclusion that what they saw was really an aircraft. That's called confirmation bias, and you should know better. Ufos as defined as nothing manmade or natural DO exist. That's the blunt truth here. We have them confirmed over and over again in thousands of accounts from credible witnesses ranging from pilots, policemen, military personel, etc. It's just the way it is. Maybe you should study up on the subject more to give yourself more credibility. You're certainly not doing that by altering eyewitness accounts to match your conclusion about it being something identified and mundane. Google ufo evidence and find out about the accounts themselves. You may be surprised at what you learn.
"The official position of the scientific establishment is that humans are not aware of the existence of any extraterrestrial civilizations, which is true. We have not found them; a scientific discovery must be repeatable and documented. That does not mean, however, that they have not found us. The amount of testimonial evidence, by credible witnesses, is overwhelming. While testimonial evidence is not "scientific" - in the sense that it cannot be repeated - testimonial evidence is still quite strong, especially when the witnesses who claim to have seen the same event are numerous and credible. There are a number of well-documented and compelling cases, including:
Japanese Airlines Flight 1628: on November 17, 1986 JAL 1628 - a 747 cargo flight carrying wine from Paris to Tokyo - was flying over Alaska when the three-person crew, led by Captain Terauchi, saw an extraordinary craft, whose size they described "as large as two aircraft carriers." The craft was the shape of a walnut and included smaller craft flying around the "mother ship". This sighting was credible because three crew members observed the craft for 45 minutes, as the craft followed JAL 1628, because the 747 flew very close to the UFO, because the enormous craft was captured on both civilian and military radar, and because a White House science panel (Reagan administration) convened an urgent meeting to examine the evidence from the radars. A high level FAA official, Calahan, was present at the meeting, and despite being ordered by officials to keep silent, Calahan has spoken out about this incident, as has Captain Terauchi. One thing was confirmed from this incident; government officials do not want to inform the public about such incidents.
Rendlesham Forrest Incident - in 1980, UFOs buzzed over, and even landed on, a US military airbase in the UK, near Sufolk England, at the Woodbridge airbase (two bases, operated by the UK and US). Dozens of US Airforce personnel saw the UFOs, including Lt. Col Charles Halt, who has spoken out about this incident, as have others. This sighting is credible because a) the people who saw the craft were trained Airforce personnel who understand airplanes, and what they saw was certainly nothing like an airplane b) the incident was actually a series of events that occurred over a three day period around Christmas, and c) a significant paper trail exists documenting this incident
On September 16, 1994 62 school children saw several UFOs land in their schoolyard in Zimbabwe - they saw two beings exit the craft. The craft and beings were aliens. The incident is credible because of the large number of witnesses who saw the craft, because all of the children described seeing the same thing, and because the late Harvard Psychologist John Mack investigated the event. See the interviews for yourselves:
https://youtu.be/_pKC11SDnog
There are many other such events. One must conclude either that all of these credible people are lying for no apparent reason, that they were all hallucinating, that they are crazy, or that they are telling the truth. I believe they are telling the truth. Just because our scientists choose not to believe such evidence does not mean the evidence is specious. The scientific community is under enormous pressure to espouse the same orthodox line, something we have known since the 1950s. When it comes to the most important issues of our time, one must think for oneself, or tow the party line."----
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-u...about-that![[Image: 9.jpg]](https://ak0.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/206140/thumb/9.jpg)
![[Image: ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-1.jpg]](http://www.hyper.net/ufo/pics/ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-1.jpg)
![[Image: ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-5.jpg]](http://www.hyper.net/ufo/pics/ufo-lynn-mn-20061211-5.jpg)