What is THE BEST evidence for UFOs?

[JTEM]

I know, I know I'm starting a fight, but
I will either learn something here or prove
a point about "UFO-Ology" as a religion...

What is the best single piece of evidence to
support the idea of alien visitations?

I'm not aware of any "Good" evidence, so what
is the best?

Now if someone asked me this same question
regarding ghost I'd have an answer for them.

"The fact that some ghosts are of living
people," I'd tell them. To me this rules
out the idea that "Ghosts" are just another
example of your all-too typical supernatural
explanation for anything that can't be explained.

Some "Ghosts" are the embodiment of living people.
I know. I've been one myself. So I know that
people aren't always even aware that they've
"Experienced" anything out of the ordinary, let
alone supernatural...

Well that's me and ghosts. That's what I think is
the one single best piece of "Evidence" for ghosts.
So, what about UFOs?

What do YOU think is the one single BEST piece
of evidence for UFOs?

Can you even name one? Just one?


-- --

Shame on conservatives:

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/36886193698

[Krab]

LOLOL~~!!

I cannot point to just one sighting but to a group, of which one may
pick what they think is the "best" of the litter. This documentary
considered 70 sightings submitted by the most respected ufologists, and
then distilled the pile down to ten cases.

As of 2007, the date of release of this documentary, these were
considered to be the "best" evidence for the existence of UFOs - not
necessarily the belief that some UFOs represent a nonhuman intelligence.
That is one possibility.

Often, when the term, "UFO," is used, the public and press automatically
associate it with "alien craft." In fact, the term was, early on,
became synonymous with "interplanetary craft." "Flying saucer" was a
term associated similarly. When a ufologist attempts to differentiate
the actual strict definition from the popular skewering of the term,
they usually have a loss of interest shown. I ran into this
psychological problem when I attempted to have people understand the
large difference in popular interpretation and the actual definition.
The popular press and entertainment media have done a terrible
disservice to the serious UFO researchers who try to be unbiased. Today,
incredibly, I still hear the same ridicule by those least informed
and/or most closed minded on the subject, accusing ufologists and
witnesses as kooks, seeing "little green men."

If you're looking for simply, purely evidence of unknown aerial objects
then it's just a matter of proving that scientific analyses cannot find
a satisfactory natural or conventional explanation.

This documentary, put out to garner a general audience, tips toward the
belief that some UFOs are extraterrestrial craft. This is unfortunate,
really, but one should ignore the inclination to dramatize the unknown
quality of these sightings as fitting into a popular preconception.

Focus only on the details, high strangeness, and quality of the
sighting, and you'll fare better in your quest to find sightings that
defy scientific explanation.

There is no doubt that unidentified aerial phenomena exist. There is
doubt that some represent a nonhuman intelligence.

This is important to remember - resist the dramatization of UFO cases in
popular media that cater to public imagination.

So, if you are truly an unbiased seeker of truth, there is overwhelming
evidence of unknown aerial phenomena in our world.

The conclusion of the documentary I wholly agree with. It is what I've
believed since I was a teenager.

https://vimeo.com/19717064


:))~

[JTEM]

I've copied the link into Chrome and will fire
up the chromecast in a moment, but first...

Eek!, Krab wrote:

> > Now if someone asked me this same question
> > regarding ghost I'd have an answer for them.
> >
> > "The fact that some ghosts are of living
> > people," I'd tell them. To me this rules
> > out the idea that "Ghosts" are just another
> > example of your all-too typical supernatural
> > explanation for anything that can't be explained.

See? The example I gave for a "Best piece of evidence"
was not a particular sighting or a specific haunted
location, but a fact. I was hoping for something along
these lines in the case of a UFO.

No, not, "Larry's sighting back in 1984" but maybe
something along the lines of... "DNA aliens left
behind."

> I cannot point to just one sighting but to a group,

It's not about one sighting or ten sightings, it's what
makes ONE sighting believable and the next nonsense.

See what I mean?

If you've got 100 or even 1000 sightings, what ONE
piece of evidence distinguishes "Authentic" UFOs
from just any old light or drug trip?


-- --

JTEM schools "Science":

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84663014743

[JTEM]

Yow!, Krab wrote:

> As of 2007, the date of release of this documentary, these were
> considered to be the "best" evidence for the existence of UFOs - not
> necessarily the belief that some UFOs represent a nonhuman intelligence.
> That is one possibility.

Here's a page debunking all the claims made in the
documentary:

http://www.space.com/9704-ten-alien-encounters-debunked.html

But that's okay. I'm less interested in particular
SIGHTINGS than in what in particular sets a "Good"
sighting from a bad...

As near as I can tell, the "Best" UFO events any
with multiple, independent witnesses, and these are
in turn put forward as "The Best" evidence.

It almost sounds logical. Almost.

Fact is, regardless of how many people see something
that they can't identify, this does not identify it
as an alien space craft. It simply identifies it as
something that most people wouldn't recognize under
the given set of circumstances.

I really want to learn something today. So, instead
of specific cases, what is it that sets a credible
case apart from a bad one?



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[manfromu.f.o.]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:966d6acf-f112-42d8...@googlegroups.com...

You've done a sterling job of totally ignoring my main points.

There is no best "alien craft" evidence. There's only very good evidence of
UNIDENTIFIED aerial objects.

Why are you looking for the former? If you're a believer that SOME
sightings represent an alien presence, then merely the mass of evidence that
UNIDENTIFIED aerial phenomena exist won't suffice.

I can tell you that within the civilian world of UFO research I've seen no
scientific verification or even very good evidence of "alien craft." And I
spent nearly 50 years on the subject.

A person sees a light or a shape in the sky (or even on the ground, or
underwater) and the interpretation might be an "alien craft" as popularized
by entertainment media. To the unbiased researcher, however, it is, at
best, after analysis, an UNIDENTIFIED object.

That's it, sailor. The rest of whatever the UNIDENTIFIED object is, is a
matter of belief, of subjective interpretation.

Sorry, there is no best evidence the aliens are here; there is only
interpretation of data on UNIDENTIFIED phenomena as such. That is why I
learned very long ago to not focus on interpretations, but on the data and
analyses thereof. Is it a phenomenon that fits any known natural or
conventional phenomena? If not, then it defies current explanation.

There is nothing else left but belief or subjective interpretation for what
that UNIDENTIFIED object might be - it's nature and origin. We don't even
have much spectrographic analysis of these objects, but the HESSDALEN
Project has done some. See my post today about the Norwegian aerial orbs.
Scientists may have found a new natural phenomenon that could explain some
UFOs!

What makes the most credible sightings are those that have multiple
independent witnesses. Beyond that, radar tracks of objects made at ground
level correlating with visual sightings is considered high quality evidence.
The training and background of the witnesses is important, too. Are they
pilots with much flying time, for example?

:))~

[JTEM]

Nope, Doc wrote:

> You've done a sterling job of totally ignoring my main points.

Have I?

> There is no best "alien craft" evidence.

Of course there is. There may be no one piece of
evidence you find COMPELLING, but there is "Evidence"
and one piece amongst that "Evidence" is in fact "The
Best."

...that honor may amount to being the "Tallest"
man in a room full of midgets, but there is evidence
and something amongst that evidence HAS TO be "the
best."

So what is it?

> There's only very good evidence of
> UNIDENTIFIED aerial objects.

"Unidentified" is meaningless. I haven't
identified what my neighbors have in their
living room, should we all assume it's
aliens?

No, sorry, we have to do A LOT better than
that...

> Why are you looking for the former?

I just want to know what you (or anyone else)
considers the best piece of evidence. That's
all.

The fact that you can't answer makes me wonder.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/10454264365

[angelofdeath]

What is "best" to you, then? LOL! A piece of metal or other material
humans cannot replicate or produce with known technology, perhaps?

Well, every piece of unusual metal they've associated with a UFO
sighting or crash, could've been produced experimentally and kept
secret. Unusual yes, impossible to produce by humans, no.

If there are aliens and they're so very advanced than us - maybe 10,000
earth years or 100,000 or l million - I don't think we'd necessarily be
expecting a "piece" of something we recognize or associate with a space
craft. A piece of metal? Their means of transport may be so beyond ours
that it would be quite like magic to us. No real idea of what it is or
how it works. Not recognized as what we commonly think is a "vehicle."

No, sorry, we have only thousands of unknown lights at night and shapes
in the daytime that we cannot find satisfactory explanations after rigid
scientific analyses. Lots of good stable experienced witnesses, too,
radar tracks, photographs, films, and videos.

:))~

[JTEM]

Absolutely not, angelofdeath wrote:

> What is "best" to you, then?

The question was what YOU consider the best, amongst
all the evidence. I want to learn something here.
What do YOU think is the best evidence?

> No, sorry, we have only thousands of unknown lights at night and shapes
> in the daytime that we cannot find satisfactory explanations after rigid
> scientific analyses.

Not necessarily true.

It's more like the case of the great Pyramid, where
the issue isn't so much that we have no explanation
as it is we have no idea which, amongst the many
plausible explanations put forward, is the truth or
at least the closest to the truth.

> Lots of good stable experienced witnesses, too,
> radar tracks, photographs, films, and videos.

Most can be accounted for by black ops.

We recover a Russian satellite... "UFO!"

We want to test a new craft... "UFO!"

We want to test a means for disabling a Soviet
missile base with an electromagnetic pulse: "UFO!"

The rest could be anything, literally anything.
This includes "Bat shit crazy observer."

But I don't want to dish out my opinion, I want to
learn something. So tell me what YOU think is the
best evidence.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[angelofdeath]

What is "best" is highly subjective depending on what values you place
on the individual components of a typical witness experience.

And that's what we're primarily dealing with - eyewitness accounts.

Does a military war pilot with thousands of hours of flying time, a
clean background, and stable personality seem like the "best" witness to
you?

Or how about a scientist in a responsible position highly trained in at
least one field applicable to understanding and making an unbiased
appraisal of a UFO he witnesses?

Is a state governor, senator, or other high-placed official the "best"
witness to you?

Well, we've got 'em all in ufological history! As reliable and qualified
as one could reasonably desire.

Sightings with triangulated radar and visual sightings that correlate
well. Mass sightings. Independent witnesses galore seeing the same
object. Photographic evidence matching independent observers' accounts.
Etc.

You must know what you are seeking as "best." Don't be shy. Let me try
to satisfy your definition.

I can't satisfy what is "best" in UFO evidence to you unless I know what
you accept as "best." Otherwise, I waste my time having you being
unsatisfied.

LOL!

:))~

[JTEM]

No joke, angelofdeath wrote:

> Sightings with triangulated radar and visual sightings that correlate
> well. Mass sightings. Independent witnesses galore seeing the same
> object. Photographic evidence matching independent observers' accounts.
> Etc.

The Phoenix Lights would be a <ahem> "Stellar" example
of a mass sighting, and quite frankly it was a non-event.

There are TONS of eye witness and none of their accounts
jive with the photographic evidence.

One of your UFO documentaries described a MASSIVE ship
traveling across the sky, so large it was blocking out
the stars. But the video clearly and unambiguously
shows a number of disarticulated lights slowly moving
vertically -- moving down -- with little if any
horizontal movement at all.

...the lights were also debunked as "Alien" from
almost the beginning. Not that they ever behaved like
any type of craft. Which, come to think of it, probably
explains the "Sightings." People see a light in the
sky they think it has to be a star or a plane. It that
light behaves like neither they assume it's an alien
craft... even if their behavior isn't explained by such
a craft (as was the case with the Phoenix Lights).

> You must know what you are seeking as "best." Don't be shy. Let me try
> to satisfy your definition.

I honestly wanted to learn something, not preach. I
wanted to know what someone else views as "The
Best."

I'm also not a believer. So it makes little sense for
me to proclaim what is or is not good.

There's a lot of "Paranormal" activity which I believe
is real -- mentally healthy people have these
experiences.

> I can't satisfy what is "best" in UFO evidence to you unless I know what
> you accept as "best."

It's not about me. It's what do YOU view as the best
amongst all the evidence.

> Otherwise, I waste my time having you being
> unsatisfied.

I'll be satisfied with any honest answer. This does not
mean I will agree with it or see it as compelling, but
regardless I would be satisfied.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/14624839208

[angelofdeath]

Sheesh. First of all, there were two Phoenix sightings. One was what you
most often see in the videos - a row of roughly parallel ill-defined
orbs slowly blinking out, not moving. Then there were sightings of a
boomerang huge object - some say as much as a 1 mile in length - with
weak lights defining its unseen shape. The shape was determined by the
stars it blotted out as it moved southward. THAT object has been hard to
explain. Only one video exists of it, and it's not of good quality. The
video everyone has seen has been explained satisfactorily as military
flare activity during a National Air Guard training session. Attempts to
explain the other object have had much more difficulty because of its
extraordinary size and total silence.
Now, it may be that the boomerang object was a most extremely rare
tough-ass temperature inversion - but to imagine a temperature inversion
holding its shape while moving such a long distance, totally blotting
out stars along the way, is almost as fantastic as assuming it was just
a big fat anomalous object. The object is also the one ex-Governor
Symington said he witnessed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SJXMBHByZY
Watch the video, listen carefully.
Either he's nuts, lying, or the object is the biggest hoax in UFO
history, or its a goddamned unknown flying object.
Now, that doesn't make it an alien craft. It makes it, at best, with the
evidence we have without subjective interpretation applied, an
UNIDENTIFIED object. Not even a craft of any kind. That's an
interpretation. It may look like what we BELIEVE represents a craft of
some kind, but we cannot prove it is a craft. The evidence is heavy that
is a real UNIDENTIFIED aerial phenomenon, mass sighted, and with the
weight of Symington's testimony.
Johnny, see, what you regard as "best" would be to satisfy you. Since
you can have 10 people, and each one will likely differ as to what is
"best" in anything, not just the quality of a UFO sighting. What is the
"best" stereo? Many opinions. The "best" car? Many opinions. All judged
from each person's set of measurement as to what they think will
convince them.
So, I ask you just one more time, what do you consider "best" as
evidence of the presence of either genuinely unknown aerial phenomena,
or (your interpretation of expectation or belief) that some are "alien
craft?" The former is rather easy to ascertain, but the latter is a
matter of subjective interpretation.
Since virtally all UFO evidence comes from witnesses' visual
observations and other experiences, the issue of "best" lies almost
entirely, realistically on the quality of the witnesses.
So, what witnesses are most impressive to you as reliable and believable?
I've already told you the truth about physical evidence - there isn't a
piece of material thought to be from a UFO or "alien craft" that cannot
be replicated or produced in a human lab or shop. Not one. Aside from
that, there are traces of "things" reported on the ground - UFOs that
have set down. Impressions, burnt vegetation, scorched dirt, even some
radiation measurements. There are radar tracks. Photographs. Videos. And
films. Analyzed to the extreme, much of it.
I'm not playing a game or being dishonest. I am not going to get into
your or anyone's game of what is "best" that satisfies YOU or them.
It'll just be irrelevant and a waste of my time. I have a lot less time
left to waste than you. I'm much older ,in ill health.
Now, goddamnit, for the last time, what is "best" to you? And I'll try
to find some evidence to match your requirements.
:))~

[JTEM]

Oops, angelofdeath wrote:

> Sheesh. First of all, there were two Phoenix sightings.

There's ZERO evidence for the second one.

> One was what you
> most often see in the videos - a row of roughly parallel ill-defined
> orbs slowly blinking out, not moving. Then there were sightings of a
> boomerang huge object - some say as much as a 1 mile in length - with
> weak lights defining its unseen shape.

Zero evidence for it. There are photographs, of course, but
the just show the first sighting. The way they turn it into
a "Craft" is by simply adding a little camera shake with a
slow exposure, turning a row of lights in a solid line or even
a row of lights atop a solid line.

> Only one video exists of it, and it's not of good quality.

It doesn't show what you're describing:

http://youtu.be/LRfXAvZ9U5M

This is just plain ridiculous. It's like the fish that
got away, which is always enormous in the retelling.

There just isn't anything to this story.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/67127975175

[angelofdeath]

Please offer evidence you think refutes the claims of the many witnesses
that sighted the V-shaped object.

Tell me why it is now identified as conventional aircraft or anything
else that is known and common phenomenon.

Explain in detail how so many witnesses over hundreds of miles could've
been seeing a misidentified natural or conventional phenomenon.

Go ahead, big mouth.

LOL!

:))~

[JTEM]

The Other Guy wrote:

> The 'second' sighting was CLEARLY flares being dropped
> by military aircraft.

No, that was the FIRST and ONLY "Sighting."

Those flares are positively identified as your
"Triangular craft."

Google it.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/65638066574

[JTEM]

Stuff, angelofdeath wrote:

> Please offer evidence you think refutes the claims of the many witnesses
> that sighted the V-shaped object.

There own evidence!

There was poop loads of photography and none of it
shows what they are describing.

Your own "10 best" documentary showed the video, which
clearly demonstrates something other than the triangle,
even as it made claim after claim of a triangle.

None of the videos show the movement described, let alone
the shape!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/65638066574

[angelofdeath]

On 5/25/2014 9:57 PM, JTEM wrote:
> The Other Guy wrote:
>
>> The 'second' sighting was CLEARLY flares being dropped
>> by military aircraft.
>
> No, that was the FIRST and ONLY "Sighting."
>
> Those flares are positively identified as your
> "Triangular craft."
>
> Google it.

Nope, you're dead wrong. The flares you've seen in the video over
Camelback Mountain near Phoenix were limited to that stationary area,
then they faded out.
The V-shaped huge object with lights was seen from Northern Arizona and
continually sighted along a more or less straight southern path of some
300 miles to Tucson.

I quote:

There is some controversy as to how best to classify the reports on the
night in question. Some are of the opinion that the differing nature of
the eyewitness reports indicates that several unidentified objects were
in the area, each of which was its own separate "event". This is largely
dismissed by skeptics as an over-extrapolation from the kind of
deviation common in necessarily subjective eyewitness accounts. The
media and most skeptical investigators have largely preferred to split
the sightings into two distinct classes, a first and second event, for
which two separate explanations are offered:
First event
The first event�the "V", which appeared over northern Arizona and
gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state,
eventually passing south of Tucson�was the apparently "wedge-shaped"
object reported by then-Governor Symington and many others. This event
started at about 8:15 over the Prescott area, and was seen south of
Tucson by about 8:45.
Proponents of two separate events propose that the first event still has
no provable explanation, but that some evidence exists that the lights
were in fact airplanes. According to an article by reporter Janet
Gonzales that appeared in the Phoenix New Times, videotape of the v
shape shows the lights moving as separate entities, not as a single
object; a phenomenon known as illusory contours can cause the human eye
to see unconnected lines or dots as forming a single shape.
Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed the lights using a
telescope outfitted with a TELEVUE 32mm eyepiece, which produces 43x
magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was
present at the time, that the lights were aircraft. According to
Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion
who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights
were, and he said, "Planes". His account is contradicted by several
thousand Phoenix residents, however, and no military or civilian
aircraft formations were known to have been flying in the area at that time.
Second event
The second event was the set of nine lights appearing to "hover" over
the city of Phoenix at around 10 pm. The second event has been more
thoroughly covered by the media, due in part to the numerous video
images taken of the lights. This was also observed by numerous people
who may have thought they were seeing the same lights as those reported
earlier.
The U.S. Air Force explained the second event as slow-falling,
long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four
A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry Goldwater
Range at Luke Air Force Base. According to this explanation, the flares
would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising
heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their
parachutes, which slowed the descent. The lights then appeared to wink
out as they fell behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain range to the
southwest of Phoenix.
A Maryland Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a
March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft
in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question. The
squadron to which he belonged was in fact at Davis - Monthan Air Force
Base, Arizona on a training exercise at the time and flew training
sorties to the Barry Goldwater Range on the night in question, according
to the Maryland Air National Guard. A history of the Maryland Air
National Guard published in 2000 asserted that the squadron, the 104th
Fight Squadron, was responsible for the incident. The first reports that
members of the Maryland Air National Guard were responsible for the
incident were published in The Arizona Republic newspaper in July 1997.
Military flares such as these can be seen from hundreds of miles given
ideal environmental conditions. Later comparisons with known military
flare drops were reported on local television stations, showing
similarities between the known military flare drops and the Phoenix
Lights. An analysis of the luminosity of LUU-2B/B illumination flares,
the type which would have been in use by A-10 aircraft at the time,
determined that the luminosity of such flares at a range of
approximately 50�70 miles would fall well within the range of the lights
viewed from Phoenix.
http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/05/ufo-sighting-viewed-by-multiple.html

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/65638066574
>

[angelofdeath]

No, there was NOT "poops load" of photographic evidence of the V-shaped
object. One video exists of it. And it's of poor quality, showing only
some weak lights in formation flying at a considerable distance.

Even the famous video of the flares over Camelback Mountain (or way
behind it) is not that good. News media and private sources enhanced it
considerably, to make the lights look brighter.

Here's some major footage without enhancements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74xUfQbzrI

Here's the other major footage without enhancements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy_fAa5G4Mc

Here's the enhanced footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Q4J8_IahA
(complete with eerie music, LOL!)

There were hundreds of people interviewed by private investigators.
People who saw the V-shaped huge object that was not stationary. Over
and over, people describe the massive object as blotting out stars over
a wide area of the sky, along with lights seemingly underneath it.

Some were directly underneath it as it glided overhead.

It was silent as it flew. As much as 70 degrees of the sky was blotted
out, and as little as 30 degrees at other vantage points.

The V-shaped object remains unexplained in natural or conventional
terms, with a discarded explanation it was actually military craft
flying in formation and an optical illusion. Investigators checked and
found no military craft in those locations at the time of the sightings.

No one can explain the hugeness, the silence of this UFO, and the
consistency of reports by independent witnesses, hundreds of them,
reporting these two aspects.

Phoenix Lights March 13, 1997, is half-mystery, half explained. If you
read the book "The Phoenix Lights," it details many eyewitness reports,
some from trained former military personnel or civilian pilots on the
ground.

Something very unusual passed over Arizona (and some reports even from
Nevada and New Mexico) during a very hectic night.

:))~

[JTEM]

Whatever, angelofdeath wrote:


> Nope, you're dead wrong. The flares you've seen in the video over
> Camelback Mountain near Phoenix were limited to that stationary area,
> then they faded out.

And I have found NUMEROUS sources identifying them
as your triangular craft. And I have seen numerous
photos of them -- or photos circulated amongst
numerous sites -- identifying them as your triangular
craft.

> The V-shaped huge object with lights was seen from Northern Arizona and
> continually sighted along a more or less straight southern path of some
> 300 miles to Tucson.

"Once the idea had entered into the ether, so to speak,
every dingbat and his brother starting identifying every
light in the sky as an enormous triangular craft," you
mean.

There is supposed to be such a craft, it was supposedly
sighted many times, but it's supposedly an experimental
transport -- like an X plane if not a true X plane.

...legend says it's a lighter-than-air craft.

This is 1000% percent separate from the "Phoenix
Lights."

The lights may have even been a distraction: "We'll
get them all looking over HERE, and run our test flight
past this point other THERE."



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/60413242229

[JTEM]

Almost, angelofdeath wrote:

> No, there was NOT "poops load" of photographic evidence of the V-shaped
> object.

The point you're missing is that there is poop loads
of photographs and they all show something, just not
any giant, triangular craft.

The photos do NOT show what is being described.

Begging the question: How can there be so much
photographic evidence showing THIS but none showing
THAT?

Easy, of course, if THAT never existed...

We know what a mass sighting in Phoenix looks like
because we have all this photographic evidence. And
here you are talking about a mass sighing with zip,
zero & nil behind it.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/60413242229

[manfromu.f.o.]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:29527838-dcab-4ae6...@googlegroups.com...

> Whatever, angelofdeath wrote:
>
>
>> Nope, you're dead wrong. The flares you've seen in the video over
>> Camelback Mountain near Phoenix were limited to that stationary area,
>> then they faded out.
>
> And I have found NUMEROUS sources identifying them
> as your triangular craft. And I have seen numerous
> photos of them -- or photos circulated amongst
> numerous sites -- identifying them as your triangular
> craft.

Nope, the still shots you've seen are from videos taken of the Camelback
lights, and others were taken with still cameras of those lights.
But, the V-shaped craft that was reported on a flight path from Northern
Arizona to Tucson has only one poor video to support it. I quote:
There are few known images of the Prescott/Dewey lights. Television station
KSAZ reported that an individual named Richard Curtis recorded a detailed
video that purportedly showed the outline of a spacecraft, but that the
video had been lost.[citation needed] The only other known video is of poor
quality and shows a group of lights with no craft visible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

Other photographic evidence claimed has been added on later purporting to
show the V-shaped object. Other photos or videos may be those of the
so-called "reappearance" of the Phoenix lights in 2007-2008, which have been
largely discounted as unknowns.

But there are many eyewitness reports of a higher caliber all along the
flight path - directly overhead sightings included.

>
>> The V-shaped huge object with lights was seen from Northern Arizona and
>> continually sighted along a more or less straight southern path of some
>> 300 miles to Tucson.
>
> "Once the idea had entered into the ether, so to speak,
> every dingbat and his brother starting identifying every
> light in the sky as an enormous triangular craft," you
> mean.
>
> There is supposed to be such a craft, it was supposedly
> sighted many times, but it's supposedly an experimental
> transport -- like an X plane if not a true X plane.
>
> ...legend says it's a lighter-than-air craft.
>
> This is 1000% percent separate from the "Phoenix
> Lights."
>
> The lights may have even been a distraction: "We'll
> get them all looking over HERE, and run our test flight
> past this point other THERE."

OK, I think it needs to be said, Johnny boy, that the internet UFO
enthusiasts have worked overtime to take the original sightings in 1997 and
convert them into alien spaceships. The V-shaped object is a "mothership" to
them, for example.
Reports of aliens seen at windows of the "craft" have been included. What I
go on is the original witnesses of the original event and the data from that
single event, that night, March 13.

There is plenty of good correlating eyewitnesses' reports of the V-shaped
object that makes it highly difficult to dismiss.

If you would take the time to read ""The Phoenix Lights" book it includes
mountains of good research and a ton of eyewitness reports to clearly
indicate the V-shaped object was massive, silent, and inexplicable.

:))~
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/60413242229

[manfromu.f.o.]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f04adb1f-5e6a-49b1...@googlegroups.com...

> Almost, angelofdeath wrote:
>
>> No, there was NOT "poops load" of photographic evidence of the V-shaped
>> object.
>
> The point you're missing is that there is poop loads
> of photographs and they all show something, just not
> any giant, triangular craft.
>
> The photos do NOT show what is being described.
>
> Begging the question: How can there be so much
> photographic evidence showing THIS but none showing
> THAT?

Simply because the photographs are mostly stills from the Camelback videos
and still camera shots, too. A weak video of the so-called "Dewey/Prescott"
UFO - the V-shaped object - is all that investigators have found. Other
claims of videos have not been verified, and most of this stuff came up far
past the event, and claims were made that it all confirmed the "alien craft"
nature of it. LOL! Well, Photoshoppers were busy, then. Some of the very
best civilian UFO investigators could not verify this other photographic
evidence as coming from that night, March 13. Some of what you've seen may
be from the sightings of 2007-8 and mixed into the mess the internet "space
alien" buffs have made of the original sighting event. The original sighting
had many good eyewitness reports to make it a mass sighting of high quality.
Not the best ufology has ever seen, but certainly within the top circle of
numerous mass sightings. Typically, mass sightings lack photographic
evidence since the objects are in sight briefly, and the fact that past
sightings didn't have advantage of many witnesses with cell cams at hand. In
1997, cell cams were practically non-existent. People are usually so stunned
by a remarkable UFO that they want to keep watching it until it vanishes.
Photographs usually only confirm that something was seen that was unusual,
and they, too, are interpretive. We have very few really good photos that
show definite shapes. Most are of lights or ill-defined "masses" in daytime.
The lack of good sharp photographs has been something neophytes and skeptics
pose as evidence that the eyewitness reports don't have "backing" to them.
LOL! Well, hardly that the photos and videos can't show common phenomena or
can't be faked.
That is why good ufologists rely heavily on good solid witnesses, correlated
reports, corroboration of independent witnesses.
The internet has made a circus of ufology, frankly, as it has of
apparitions, sasquatches, lake monsters, etc. People crave more sensational
videos or photographs to gaze at, then usually end up arguing about the
"realness" of the photo evidence.
If you're looking for videos or photos to nail down the phenomenon as "real"
these types of evidence alone cannot do this anymore than eyewitness
accounts by the thousands because, essentially, the phenomeon has been
polluted with media hype and exploiters, and it all gets down to either
having an open mind of inquiry or having a biased one.
:))~

[JTEM]

Doc wrote:

> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote

> > And I have found NUMEROUS sources identifying them
> > as your triangular craft. And I have seen numerous
> > photos of them -- or photos circulated amongst
> > numerous sites -- identifying them as your triangular
> > craft.

> Nope

This is not a matter up for debate. Anyone who merely
looks can find what I describe.

We can't have a conversation on this matter if you will
not accept reality.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/14009652548

[JTEM]

Doc wrote:

> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote

> > The point you're missing is that there is poop loads
> > of photographs and they all show something, just not
> > any giant, triangular craft.
> >
> > The photos do NOT show what is being described.
> >
> > Begging the question: How can there be so much
> > photographic evidence showing THIS but none showing
> > THAT?

> Simply because the photographs are mostly stills from the Camelback videos
> and still camera shots, too.

WRONG ANSWER!

I did not ask WHAT the photos show -- I know what they
show and even stated as much -- I asked how we could
have shit for your triangle when so much exists for the
flares?

And this is important.

I forget who (not that it matters), but I recall a big
deal being made about one person changing their mind on
UFOs, because with the proliferation home video (even
freaking cell phones!) there should have been a monster
increase in evidence and even "Proof."

But it never happened.

Here is yet another example.

There really were flares so there really is TONS
of video and still. And if there really was a
giant flying triangle there were be lots of video
and photos of that, too.

There is not.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/14009652548

[manfromu.f.o.]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2a236a8-ab03-4401...@googlegroups.com...

I can't seem to get through to you. Visit a neurologist ASAP.
There could be a synapse or two have shut down.
:))~
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/14009652548

[manfromu.f.o.]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:36d3a016-0a8f-4109...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, I confirmed there isn't much photo evidence for the V-shaped object.
There also isn't hardly a photograph around or video of other objects seen
in mass sightings, either.
I explained to you ratonally that many are so stunned by the appearance of a
remarkable UFO (such as the V-shaped object so huge and silent) that they
continue to watch it, not running around to get their cameras. This was
1997, Johnny boy, and phone cams were virtually non-existent, and the tape
or film cams they had then were more likely somewhere NOT handy. And who
wants to miss the great spectacle running about searching for the cam,
perhaps with no tape in it, adjusting the settings, getting it recharged,
etc.? Same goes for a film still camera (where were the digital still
cameras back then??). Often the objects are in sight more than a few
seconds, or much less than a minute.
LOL! Do you know that mass sightings over TWO YEARS in Belgium produced
only a few good photos of lights that match most of the descriptions, and
the Belgian AF had some film footage they showed at a press conference.
Radar picked it up, too.
http://thenightsky.org/belgian.html
After many people saw the triangular object for two years, we have only a
few photos. The Arizona 1997 V-shaped object sighting occurred during one
night.
It all gets down to the eyewitnesses, correlation, and corroboration. The
quality of them, are they trained observers, educated, not drinking, holding
responsible positions, etc.? And then from there it's a matter of whether
you or anyone has an open mind, and can carefully read and comprehend, and
have enough fucking intelligence.
It would't matter if there had been a box full of photos and videos, Johnny
boy, because unless any of them showed an "alien craft" your biased closed
mind would've said they were photos of common phenomena or fakes. LOL!
Unless the NAS had analyzed them, with a dozen other prestigious scientific
organizations concurring that the photos or videos represented a "real"
unknown object, you'd been unsatisfied as hell.
Unless a UFO is proved to be what it is popularly interpreted as, an "alien
craft," just having truly unknown objects in our presence flying about,
wouldn't impress you.
I'm not here to impress you. There's plenty of good solid eyewitness
testimony reaching back to 1947, and I suggest you either be satisfied with
all that, or shoot yourself.
LOL!
:))~

[JTEM]

Doc wrote:

> I can't seem to get through to you.

There is no argument here. Google it. You'll see
for yourself. I have. You're argument is against
reality and not me.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/36719209398

[JTEM]

Doc wrote:

> Yes, I confirmed there isn't much photo evidence for the V-shaped object.

Wrong. There isn't any. Let's make that one
point abundantly clear: There is any photographic
or video evidence showing the craft which is
described. None.

There are some lights in the sky -- as if that's
a big deal -- but none fit the description of
this massive triangular craft.

> There also isn't hardly a photograph around or video of other objects seen
> in mass sightings, either.

Irrelevant.

We have a specific place a specific time frame,
and in that place & time we have oodles of
photographic evidence -- including video -- for
the flares. There is no explanation what so
ever for the sudden lack of evidence in the
case this "other" mass sighting.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/36719209398

[angelofdeath]

And what "reality" you can't accept, is that you have no idea what
you're talking about, and obviously smoked so goddamned much indica
you're floating over Arizona yourself, thinking you're triangular.

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/14009652548
>

[angelofdeath]

On 5/27/2014 8:28 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Doc wrote:
>
>> Yes, I confirmed there isn't much photo evidence for the V-shaped object.
>
> Wrong. There isn't any. Let's make that one
> point abundantly clear: There is any photographic
> or video evidence showing the craft which is
> described. None.

Is there a photograph or video of you that confirms you're JTEM? If
there is, how can we be sure it's you and not a jackass?

LOL!

[JTEM]

angelofdeath wrote:

> And what "reality" you can't accept, is that you have no idea what
> you're talking about

There is nothing to talk about. If you merely Googled it
yourself you would see: The flares are identified on
countless websites as your triangular craft.

This is a fact. Deal with it.


-- --

The "Global Warming" conspiracy:

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/87085900116

[JTEM]

angelofdeath wrote:

> Is there a photograph or video of you that confirms you're JTEM?

Many. But that's a ridiculous comparison.

You're comparing a UFO "Sighting" to JTEM while I'm
comparing a UFO "Sighting" to a UFO "Sighting" that
occurred in the exact same place and in the exact same
time frame.

[abook...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 8:50:46 PM UTC-7, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:30:28 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>

>
> The 'second' sighting was CLEARLY flares being dropped
>
> by military aircraft.

Yep.

Those were flares, and one could see each go out on its own internal timeclock ( Fuel left to keep it lit).

[angelofdeath]

On 5/29/2014 5:18 AM, JTEM wrote:
> angelofdeath wrote:
>
>> Is there a photograph or video of you that confirms you're JTEM?
>
> Many. But that's a ridiculous comparison.
>
> You're comparing a UFO "Sighting" to JTEM while I'm
> comparing a UFO "Sighting" to a UFO "Sighting" that
> occurred in the exact same place and in the exact same
> time frame.

How can you prove the photos and videos aren't of someone else?

People see what they want to see, ya know.

I want evidence JTEM is "real" and isn't being impersonated.

How many corroborated witnesses have you got to prove JTEM exists?

[JTEM]

angelofdeath wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > You're comparing a UFO "Sighting" to JTEM while I'm
> > comparing a UFO "Sighting" to a UFO "Sighting" that
> > occurred in the exact same place and in the exact same
> > time frame.

> How can you prove the photos and videos aren't of someone else?

As I had just pointed out, while you ignored like that
doesn't marginalize you, it's irrelevant. It's not the
least bit analogous to the issue here. I'm comparing two
UFO "Sighting" from the exact same place and time frame,
and you're asking a totally separate question all together.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/87585260335

[New and Improved]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it turned out there
is no GOOD evidence for your aliens, let alone
one piece that's "The best."



New and Improved wrote:
> I know, I know I'm starting a fight, but
> I will either learn something here or prove
> a point about "UFO-Ology" as a religion...
>
> What is the best single piece of evidence to
> support the idea of alien visitations?
>
> I'm not aware of any "Good" evidence, so what
> is the best?
>
> Now if someone asked me this same question
> regarding ghost I'd have an answer for them.
>
> "The fact that some ghosts are of living
> people," I'd tell them. To me this rules
> out the idea that "Ghosts" are just another
> example of your all-too typical supernatural
> explanation for anything that can't be explained.
>
> Some "Ghosts" are the embodiment of living people.
> I know. I've been one myself. So I know that
> people aren't always even aware that they've
> "Experienced" anything out of the ordinary, let
> alone supernatural...
>
> Well that's me and ghosts. That's what I think is
> the one single best piece of "Evidence" for ghosts.
> So, what about UFOs?
>
> What do YOU think is the one single BEST piece
> of evidence for UFOs?
>
> Can you even name one? Just one?

Too much truth!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/145102833166