Alien Flyover of Arizona-March 13th
auth...@webtv.net
SHERILYN --- who keeps using different headers (or banners) to write in
this newsgroup, because answering questions or commenting under ALIEN
FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH, is considered by SHERILYN as helping in
a propaganda campaign, is starting to get upset.
SHERILYN'S reasons are that no alien visitation of this planet has been
proven. Whether that has any bearing on the event of March 13th that
covered an area from Paulden AZ in the North to Tucson in the South, is
hard to understand.
SHERILYN is happy to comment or question under a banner (or header) that
mentions "Phoenix Lights" or "Phoenix UFO" because even though the event
was not confined to Phoenix, evidently these headline and sound bite
terms maybe have visited this planet? The UFO or Lights were not
confined to Phoenix. Cite, cite, cite.
SHERILYN --- answering an item mentioned by ALIEN VISIONS in a post, that
just didn't require an answer from the esteemed Sherilyn, wrote, "Take it
up with the San Francisco Examiner" and near the end of that post,
SHERILYN, stooped to using, "usual Roswell cultie tripe".
SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.
It must be that there were no lights, no ufo, no V-shaped object, nothing
happened on March 13th over Arizona at all, in SHERILYN's fantasy world.
SHERILYN ---- please keep looking up at Charing Cross Station, you may
see something that no one will ever believe, because their open minds
have a huge hole in them.
Doc in Phoenix
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
bob
[snip]
> >
> >SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.
>>>>>
Sherilyn wrote:
> Could you explain this, Doc? I already told you I am not upset by it and
> am not going to change your subject lines one little bit. As I remarked
> earlier, this is a last desperate attempt to breathe some life into what
> is rapidly turning into a complete foil-helmet job.
>>>>>
You mean like it did in Lubbock, Texas back in 1951?
-bob t.
Sherilyn
In article <8724751...@dejanews.com>, auth...@webtv.net writes
>SHERILYN --- who keeps using different headers (or banners) to write in
>this newsgroup, because answering questions or commenting under ALIEN
>FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH, is considered by SHERILYN as helping in
>a propaganda campaign, is starting to get upset.
Ahem. I am?
By the Doc, your frequent use of block capitals is normally frowned on
in USENET. It makes people look like they are shouting at the top of
their voices, for some reason no doubt related to psychology.
[blether snipped]
>
>SHERILYN --- answering an item mentioned by ALIEN VISIONS in a post, that
>just didn't require an answer from the esteemed Sherilyn,
...it being addressed to a claim made by the SF Examiner and all...
> wrote, "Take it
>up with the San Francisco Examiner" and near the end of that post,
>SHERILYN, stooped to using, "usual Roswell cultie tripe".
Yes, it was a nasty thing to say. Bad, bad Sherilyn. Must remember to
treat the hundredth brainwashed Roswell cultie just as politely as the
first.
>
>SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.
Could you explain this, Doc? I already told you I am not upset by it and
am not going to change your subject lines one little bit. As I remarked
earlier, this is a last desperate attempt to breathe some life into what
is rapidly turning into a complete foil-helmet job.
[blether snipped]
--
Sherilyn
"[The scientific community ignores UFOs] because they don't want to be
associated with a field full of kooks and nuts. And the fact is, it is full of
kooks and nuts." -Kevin Randle, author of The UFO Crash at Roswell.
Paul Owen
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<bgUp5ODE...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bcb26a$49f21290$15e42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
> >There is certainly enough video
> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>
> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
Oh, one other thing, when you go chopping the headers from replies be
careful you don't remove headers that refer to other peoples replies. For
example I did not write the text above, nor that below, but you removed the
appropriate header and thus it looks like I wrote that text (since only my
header remains). Please be more careful.
> >> Don't say its flares either! Don't even try that stupid excuse. I've
> >> seen flares dropped from airplanes, and I've seen the many videos of
the
> >> flyover. Its not flares!
>
> They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the things
> Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that.
kov
snip
> There is certainly enough video
> >> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
> >>
> >> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
> >
> >Find them for your self!
> >HOW (emphasis not shouting) is it possible that you are discussing
> the
> >very TOPIC (emphasis not shouting) of the "Pheonix UFO signting"
> without
> >having seen the videos?
>
> Kov snipped this bit:
>
> "They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the
>
> things Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that."
Sorry I snipped this, but I have been trying to get Sherilyn to answer
just 1 of my questions. I try to get her to stay on track towards one
subject, but she is a talented debunker/dissinformation poster. Wether
she is doing it on purpose or just for fun.Very Good Sherilyn, what
exactly has Mike said to make what clear? He has simply tried to tell
his story. He is probably searching for answers and the truth. I know
thats a hard concept for you to grasp.
>
>
> I have seen March 13th Phoenix Lights videos. Where are the "alien
> flyover" videos of which you speak?
>
DISSINFORMATION tactic!I have specifically left the word "ALIEN" out of
all of my posts. Please look back if you don't believe me. I don't know
if the UFO spotted on March 13th over Pheonix was ALIEN in origin. I
tend to lean towards secret projects, by whomever. I am not saying
secret projects explain away every UFO sighting, but its the best
explanation available.
Ax
In article <34045227...@e.com>, d...@e.com wrote:
> Hows _this_? Your parents met on a PETRIE DISH!
Much better, thank you.
Ax.
--
- I used to be indecisive; now I'm not so sure. -
Sherilyn
In article <01bcb2cc$9c04bd00$dfe42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
<NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
>
>>> Please stop talking code. What is FOAS?
>>
>>
>> Please stop talking code. What is UAV?
>
>I'm a little surprised that someone interested in UFO's does not have any
>interest in military matters since more often than not the two go hand in
>hand. FOAS or Future Offensive Air System is the British project (still
>quite secret as to actual content) to find a replacement for the RAF's
>Tornado IDS (Interdiction/Strike) aircraft in around 2011/2013. BAe are
>supposed to be working on the project, one design (for a manned aircraft)
>is by all accounts termed HALO (High Agility Low Observability) and the
>design of this appears from many sources including at least two articles in
>Janes (a defence magazine) to be triangular in shape (not unsurprising
>given its title!). In addition the project is looking at UAV (Un-manned
>Aerial Vehicle) designs thus allowing many more craft to be purchased while
>reducing the size of the craft and hence improving its stealthiness. A
>number of UAV projects are underway and Lockheed-Martin (LM) of the U.S is
>known to be involved (again Janes Year in Review). Other systems include
>long range stealthy cruise missiles. Hope this clears things up for you ...
>but I would suggest you increase your knowledge base since you are arguing
>from a very weak standpoint if you don't know these terms or systems.
Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
Much that passes for "military hardware" discussions on flying saucer
newsgroups seems to involve hypothetical antigravity devices and
captured alien spaceships. I regard such speculation as of passing
interest only. There are, however, many on the saucer newsgroups and
on my home group, sci.skeptic, who obviously know far more than I about
current, actual military hardware and its capabilities.
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Sherilyn
In article <34044E6B...@e.com>, kov <d...@e.com> writes
>>
>> Kov snipped this bit:
>>
>> "They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the
>>
>> things Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that."
>
...
>what
>exactly has Mike said to make what clear? He has simply tried to tell
>his story. He is probably searching for answers and the truth.
"All that is known about the 9:30 video is that it's LIGHTS.
Strange lights, but none the less lights."
In private email to me, Mike has repeatedly stressed his personal
opinion that the video just shows lights (he is also sure they are not
flares, I am not so sure) and that he thinks there were many different
things were in the air that night. I hope I have represented his
opinion correctly.
>
>>
>>
>> I have seen March 13th Phoenix Lights videos. Where are the "alien
>> flyover" videos of which you speak?
>>
>
>DISSINFORMATION tactic!I have specifically left the word "ALIEN" out of
>all of my posts. Please look back if you don't believe me. I don't know
>if the UFO spotted on March 13th over Pheonix was ALIEN in origin. I
>tend to lean towards secret projects, by whomever. I am not saying
>secret projects explain away every UFO sighting, but its the best
>explanation available.
And Kov lands flat on his face. The smoking gun: note the title, the
wording of my question, and the subject line, which Kov even altered
from a previous subject line without removing the word "alien".
From: kov <m...@exec.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.area51,
alt.paranet.ufo,alt.ufo.reports,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Alien Flyover : SHERILYN hasn't seen video
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:18:36 -0700
Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI
Message-ID: <3403AA...@exec.com>
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <01bcb26a$49f21290$15e42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
> >There is certainly enough video
> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>
> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
Find them for your self!
HOW (emphasis not shouting) is it possible that you are discussing the
very TOPIC (emphasis not shouting) of the "Pheonix UFO signting" without
having seen the videos?
SHERILYN (shouting) Please answer one of my questions before you ask me
another one.
Paul Owen
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<u+CEe3Fa...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
Well I wouldn't do a search for pages containing UAV and UFO ... since most
fervent UFO believers won't admit that such sightings may be quite
attributable to such craft ;)
As for discussion of military projects ... well I'm more interested in the
military than UFO's ... you will find me among other places on
rec.aviation.military and sci.military.naval (I'm the one defending the
EF2000 !! )
C.o.jones
OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO alien
flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret military
stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with new design
rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise associated with rotary
wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor)
helicopter that has been in production for several years.
Here in Arizona, we have several military and government operations that
deal in clandestine activities. It is well-know that Ft Huachuca, near
Sierra Vista has long been a training facility for the CIA. They have
trained foriegn military and civilian agents there. Evergreen air used
to be a CIA-funded aircraft modification and repair facility. I
understand that they are now out of this involvement, or so they say.
There was also a facility at the Tucson airport in the 1980's that
rebuilt at least one C-47 (DC-3) that later crashed in Nicaragua with
much publicity. They stopped answering their phones shortly thereafter.
The point is, we cannot look at every unusual event and claim that it's
alien visitations. First, we look for more prosaic answeres, even if
they do not fit our agenda. That's how we establish credibility,
something the current UFO crowd does not have.
Jim Smith
--
"Man's most precious possessions are his delusions. Sufficiently
threatened, he will surrender his property, wife, and children, but he
will kill or be killed to keep his delusions." -- James E. Smith
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Pete comments: Kov, sherilyn doesn't know how to
relate when truth is relevant. She has proven to
be inellectually dishonest over and over on alt.astrology.
So, why would you take anything posted by this
person as meaningful. If she hasn't learned about
telling the turth at this late stage, (she has to be over
50) - then of what value is any discussion?
regards, Pete
kov <d...@e.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn,
>What are you talking about? Really.
>You are being completely confusing. No doubt on purpose.
>
>To clarify my last post. I have not and will not use the word "Alien" in
>my posts (I will NOT delete it from your post though). I don't claim to
>know something is "Alien" until it can be proven it is not from this
>Earth.
>
>Sherilyn used the word "Alien" in a reply to my message as a tactic for
>getting off the real subject. Something she does often and on purpose.
>
>There is no "smoking gun" that I can find. I am still standing straight
>up (not on my face). What else will Sheilyn try next?
>
>Lets try to get back on the subject though. PLEASE.
>So, Mike F. says he saw "just lights".
>Whats your friggin' point. Thats all I see on the videos also. I want to
>know what the hell the lights were. So they were lights over Pheonix.
>Thanks for clearing that up. Duh.
>
>The lights were in formation and they were on longer then flares would
>burn. I've seen video footage where there are as many as 9 lights and as
>few as 5 in formation. I've seen video footage of a light that comes
>into view and joins an existing formation. These are by no means common
>or as Sherilyn wants us to believe "just lights" (Mike Fortson called
>them "strange lights").
>WHAT were they? Thats simply all I, like most, would like to know. Until
>we know for sure, we have to call the lights, UFO's.
>> Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> > >There is certainly enough video
>> > >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>> >
>> > Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
>
>SHERYLYN DISSINFORMATION
>This is where the word "Alien" was introduced into this post by
>Sherilyn.
>I never refered to the sightings as "Alien". I do this specifically to
>prove Sherilyn is a professional and it has caught her. Wether she does
>it for fun or for a paycheck. Sherilyn is GUILTY of dissinformation and
>lying.
>
>p.s. I have never snipped out pertinent information, as we all know, you
>sometimes need to snip text in order to post.
J. Migneco
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:47:29 +0000, "Bryan!" <be...@concentric.net> wrote:
>C.o.jones wrote:
>>
>> OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO alien
>> flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret military
>> stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with new design
>> rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise associated with rotary
>> wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor)
>> helicopter that has been in production for several years.
>>
>
>(big snip)
>
>Jim,
>
>The point is...if it was not alien, it is accountable. The federal
>government has a large playground to the southwest of Phoenix they can
>fly their super stealthy toys on, without creating a stir among the
>natives. The only explanations which will fit this scenerio, without
>someone needing to be accountable, are heat inversion (mirage), an
>unknown natural phenomenon, or alien craft.
>
<snip>
>cheers,
>Bryan!
Maybe the concept of hovering over a large city with hundreds of
eyewitnesses is PRECISELY the point. What better way to continue to
desensitize the general population to unusual crafts and bring this type
of activity into the mainstream counciousness. Whether or not there has
EVER been a capture and back-engineering of an alien airship, there seems
to be little doubt that the US gov't/military have some highly advanced
toys with capabilities unlike any we've ever seen publicly. I've never
felt that the flyover in Phoenix was anything but a Made in USA design.
They've been experimenting with disk shapes and alternative designs since
the early '50s.
Regarding accountability, since when did the darkest, most secretive
sectors of our government and military ever worry about that?? Denial has
always worked in the past -- tens of millions of people believe everything
they see on the evening news.
Jim Migneco
Remove "nospam" from address to reply by email.
tomi...@vegas.infi.net
On 1997-08-30 be...@concentric.net said:
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.
>area51,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.ufo.reports,sci.skeptic
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>Xref: news.infi.net alt.alien.research:24189 alt.alien.
>visitors:38247 alt.conspiracy.area51:7802 alt.paranet.ufo:26745 alt.
>ufo.r C.o.jones wrote: >
>> OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO
>>alien flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret
>>military stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with
>>new design rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise
>>associated with rotary wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the
>>M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor) helicopter that has been in production
>for several years. >
>(big snip)
>Could you tell us more of what you witnessed. Why do you believe
>it was helicopters?
>> The point is, we cannot look at every unusual event and claim
>>that it's alien visitations. First, we look for more prosaic
>>answeres, even if they do not fit our agenda. That's how we
>>establish credibility, something the current UFO crowd does not
>have. >
>> Jim Smith
>We are not talking crowds here Jim. And if we are, I'm part of the
>human *crowd*...which *crowd* are you? :-)
>cheers,
>Bryan!
Is it now a flight of helicopters? I thought it was those NG
A-10s. Boy, they had quite a few craft flying in that airspace
for an International Airport and a military field. Why didnt
they just present the flight plans for all this traffic and warn
Sky Harbor. These are all a danger to commercial aircraft,
unknown craft in that ATC area.
Question on another government project.
I am often awake late at night due to much pain and I usually
tape the 3:00 a.m. movies on TCM. I started to one night on the
morning of th ePathfinder event and, since I didn't like the
move, I was jumping, surfing, and I unknowlingly captured a
report of a big round ball, light colored, with seams running
from pole to pole, sort of. A voice was saying, 'Wow, that must
have bounced 100-150 feet.' All it is is this ball bouncing
sort of from 10 o'clock and going out of the picture at 4 oclock.
Sometime later I wondered about it. It was apparently Pathfinder
bouncing on Mars. I didn't think about it until I thought,
'Hey, what took that picture?' It was up pretty close. Plus I
am legally blind and even on my big screen I lose things since
what I see is peripherally viewed. Then I realized, that must
have been an animation, the kind NASA does to show what happens
in different projects. It bounced amont a barren, rocky area.
Nice picture of the surace and rocks. When the photos came back
from Mars, even thouogh NASA said they id not know where it
would land or what they could expect, the animation seemed to be
right on. I couldn't tell so I asked my wife to look at them.
She thought they were very similar in rock shaps and locations
and surface, very, very similar. She thought that a couple of
the rocks looked identical.
I am getting a video capture system for some other experiments I
wish to do, but I thouoght: maybe I can superimpose the picture
of the animation over all the mars photos. Wouldn't it be a
fantastic coincidence if there were some perfect matches?
I know someone has said that it was fantastic luck that the
Pathfinder ball survived 18gs touchdown, followed by 15 more
bounces, nothing damaged, and it ended up perfectly upright and
level. Great stroke of luck. I wonder what the probabilities
would be that some rocks or formations in the animation would
match the rock and formations on the mars photos?
I never could find that single shot of Pathfinder animation
again. Anyone else get that? It might be valuable. I have put
it away with a friend for safekeeping.
I would not say that any luck was the result of activities in
concert, not at all. I would only comment that the guys at NSA
are prescient and very lucky.
tomitire
bob tarantino
[snip]
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Include me, Doc. I still have to see evidence that the lights prove that
there is a V-shaped aircraft flying over AZ. All I see are lights. Couldn't
be that they are a group of aircraft flying in formation? Suppose not, since
there
were NO aircraft flying at the time. I guess this doesn't include the alleged
airliner
making an approach on the Good Year flightline or the other pilot that,
allegedly
flew under the alien craft to try and identify it. What about their lights,
such as
wing tip lights and anti-collision? How come, when the whole incident was
reported, neither of these craft were present in the air, but now are
mentioned?
Did they shut off thier lights so that they wouldn't be abducted,
disregarding standard
air safety practices? I suppose they didn't want to identified as alien
craft. Lights
are proof of an alien presence, aren't they. Of course, the craft is
transparent,
therefore the lights are the only thing visible. Good thing Wonder Woman
didn't
use any lights. She would have been shot down or, at least, witnessed by
groups of people that came out to only stare at a group of lights flying over
a
city.
Seems to be some gaps in the story here, which some people are trying to fill
in becuase it doesn't match what they wish it to be.
And you wonder why Sherilyn doesn't want to make the jump from "Lights over
Phoenix" to "Alien Flyover"?
Whoops, once again, I make that damn mistake of hoping for REAL proof.
I must stop doing that, one of these days.
>>>>>>>>>
You state that "All I see are lights", yet fail to admit no explaination of a
known craft exists. This same formation has been associated with thousands of
UFO sightings dating back to the summer of 1951 in the southwest and in
Lubbock Texas where a boomerang shaped formation of lights was photographed,
and is one of the most well known of UFO sightings in ufology. This case was
covered in I believe several books by Jerome Clark and in "The UFO Casebook"
by Kevin Randle. In one of the videos from Phoenix (the one appearing closest
to the craft) the object appears to be outlined by the lights which seem to
shine away from a central object, but not shine inward. In the
Bentwaters-Woodbridge case of 1980, a witness to the craft said it appeared
that the "fabric of the craft" looked like glass that could only be seen near
the lights, as if the reflection of light near the surface revealed the
transparent hull these obects use. Dr. Ellen Crystall describes craft she had
seen in upper state NY in an identical way stating that the hull could be seen
only near the lights. Skeptics will continue to dig for a "plausible" answer,
but the obvious one is that we are being lied to. This case will remain as
the Lubbock lights case of 1951, as one of the most documented, and
unexplained events in ufology. I sincerely doubt any earthly answer will be
found.
-bob tarantino
zool
Say, did the Military say if the so-called "Classified" aircraft that
people mistook for UFOs, are STILL being "Classified"? If not, I sure
would like the FEDS to tell me WHICH aircraft in our Wonderful Military
arsenal I saw on a summer night in 1961 that resembled a brillant white
light that hovered over some power lines, dropped red sparks from the
bottom and then suddenly shot South in an arc. One of three people with
saw the object heading North. Sure as hell wasn't an F-4 or an SR-71
for that matter.
Or could it be those pesky Crash Test Dummies are at it a again?
ZOOL
P.S. This was in Portsmouth, VA., over the Hattonsville area.
>
> "Paul Owen" <po...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> ><u+CEe3Fa...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> >> Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
> >> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
> >> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
> >> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
> >> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
> >> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
> >
> >Well I wouldn't do a search for pages containing UAV and UFO ... since most
> >fervent UFO believers won't admit that such sightings may be quite
> >attributable to such craft ;)
> >
> ===
> It's obvious:
> When the U.S. military recently stated that half of early UFO sightings
> were due to classified aircraft - they are plainly advising the public not
> to get so paranoid about UFO sightings -occurring in recent years and in
> the future- because they are mostly due to new generations of more
> advanced, classified aircraf
shee...@micron.net
Howdy Bob:
Can you tell me how a group of lights proves that there is an explanation
for something other than known aircraft. While I don't know exactly
what the lights are, I can suspect that the lights are several aircraft
flying in a formation. There are a few military groups that do fly
similar formations. These do not have to be the Blue Angels flying in
F-16's, nor do they need to be the F-18's used by the Navy's stunt team.
Many military pilots fly formations that most people think are not standard.
I used to watch many F-111E's do much the same and more. After having
worked on several different type of aircraft over the years, I am aware of what
they can do.
I have yet to see proof that many sightings exceed the limits of aircraft that
are older than 30 years, which is the majority of my experience. I have been
around some that are over 20 years (F-15's, for example) that can perform
many maneuvers that are described as impossible.
As for flights of craft dating back to 1951, why not consider the SuperBee.
This was an extremely fast aircraft for its time. It was nearly nothing but
engine, with enough room left for flight control and the pilot. For it's day, I'm sure that
it could do stunts that were considered impossible. By the way, it was all fabric, too.
I will take a look at the reference that you provided. I am glad that someone
can provide something like that.
Bob
wyzguy
zool <dol...@infi.net> wrote:
> ZOOL
>>
Is that the reason we are being inundated with aliens,
T-shirts,movies, tv shows,books,and endless sightings. The hour when
we'll all findout must be soon approaching.
Shooty
In article <343C21...@noway.com>, John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a "
sceptic ",
> that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
> arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
> with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
> come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
> because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
As Carbon dating is of no value on an object that old I seriously doubt
that you know what you are saying.
Shooty
Spike
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <01bcb2cc$9c04bd00$dfe42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
>> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >> Please stop talking code. What is FOAS?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please stop talking code. What is UAV?
>> >
>> >I'm a little surprised that someone interested in UFO's does not have any
>> >interest in military matters since more often than not the two go hand in
>> >hand. FOAS or Future Offensive Air System is the British project (still
>> >quite secret as to actual content) to find a replacement for the RAF's
>> >Tornado IDS (Interdiction/Strike) aircraft in around 2011/2013. BAe are
>> >supposed to be working on the project, one design (for a manned aircraft)
>> >is by all accounts termed HALO (High Agility Low Observability) and the
>> >design of this appears from many sources including at least two articles in
>> >Janes (a defence magazine) to be triangular in shape (not unsurprising
>> >given its title!). In addition the project is looking at UAV (Un-manned
>> >Aerial Vehicle) designs thus allowing many more craft to be purchased while
>> >reducing the size of the craft and hence improving its stealthiness. A
>> >number of UAV projects are underway and Lockheed-Martin (LM) of the U.S is
>> >known to be involved (again Janes Year in Review). Other systems include
>> >long range stealthy cruise missiles. Hope this clears things up for you ...
>> >but I would suggest you increase your knowledge base since you are arguing
>> >from a very weak standpoint if you don't know these terms or systems.
>>
>> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
>> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
>> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
>> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
>> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
>>
>> newsgroups seems to involve hypothetical antigravity devices and
>> captured alien spaceships. I regard such speculation as of passing
>> interest only. There are, however, many on the saucer newsgroups and
>> on my home group, sci.skeptic, who obviously know far more than I about
>> current, actual military hardware and its capabilities.
>> Sherilyn
>> For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
>that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
>arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
>with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
>come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
>because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
>and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
>that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
>that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
>was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
>old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
What other evidence do you have?
---
Rob
<snip>
> Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old.
Prove this statement and you'll make a believer out of every skeptic
here. Funny how these things never seem to pan out, though.
Thomas Green
<snip>
. Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
>
erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides usable
dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10 half-lives)...after
that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
Tom
Bob Casanova
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:14:20 +0000, in sci.skeptic, John Dough
<jdo...@noway.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out.
Do you imagine anyone actually cares?
> Your a " sceptic ",
>that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant,
No, it's an accurate way of saying a person doesn't believe what some
idiot says if there is no supporting evidence. But please continue
your fantasy.
> for
>arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> I have done " work "
>with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
>come by my knowledge quite easily.
Evidence, please? Organization, systems experience, and other
pertinent data would help. Or is this just more BS?
> The U.S. Government is scared,
>because something is going on that they can't CONTROL.
So you're familiar with Billary. So?
> Aliens are real
>and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
>that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
>that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
>was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
>old.
Carbon dating is only good to approximately 50k yrs. Shame you didn't
know that...
> Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
Perhaps you should take your own advice. Except instead of "get on
with you life" it would be merely "get a life". And, if it's not too
much stress, a clue.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
John Dough
Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
Richard White
On 8 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:
> <snip>
> . Aliens are real
> > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
> >
>
> erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides usable
> dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10 half-lives)...after
> that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:
>
> http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
Not to mention that carbon dating is only valid on things of
known isotope ratios, i.e. of earth origin.
Richard.
cdc
How do we know they are aliens it is more likely they are travelers from
another demonson or at least the use other deminsons to get to earth . FTL
travel is imposible unless you do something differant that is simular to
the warp technology on the sci-fi show Star Trek
Rob <shok...@well.com> wrote in article
<shokwave-081...@dialup-003-083.wc-aus.io.com>...
> In article <343C21...@noway.com>, John Dough <jdo...@noway.com>
wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Aliens are real
> > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > old.
>
Sherilyn
In article <01bcd4e5$bfba7b00$4705...@ns.3gcom.com>, cdc
<loc...@comsys.net> writes
>The thing about technology will some day be based on organics .
Wake up and smell the coffee! Already biotechnology is big business.
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Royston Paynter
John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote in article
> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
> that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
> arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
> with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
> come by my knowledge quite easily.
With what advanced propulsion systems have you worked? Where, and when?
>The U.S. Government is scared,
> because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old.
What does "semi-electronic" mean? In what manner was it determined that the
object was created ina vacuum, or on another planet? If it comes from
another planet, of what use is carbon dating (which requires calibration
from tree rings or the like.) Where did you come by the information you
relate here?
--
Scientific skepticism, UFOs and the flying saucer myth
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148
Thomas Green
Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.971009061321.12180G-100000@grad>...
> On 8 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to
prove
> > > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > >
> >
> > erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides
usable
> > dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10
half-lives)...after
> > that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:
> >
> > http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
>
> Not to mention that carbon dating is only valid on things of
> known isotope ratios, i.e. of earth origin.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Good point! Forgot about that:-)
Tom
Will...@spam.net
In article <01bcd56a$d06411c0$440893c3@thomasgr> "Thomas Green" <tomg...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
>From: "Thomas Green" <tomg...@globalnet.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Believe it or not aliens are real.
>Date: 10 Oct 1997 10:54:11 GMT
>Adell <ad...@prodigy.net> wrote in article <343DBC...@prodigy.net>...
>> cdc,
>>
>> Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
>> demonsion???
>>
>If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist
>in other dimensions....parallel universes might be more likely candidate
>but (1) can they exist? and (2)how would one form a link between them? Any
>theoretical physicists out there who could explain this?
>Tom
Other dimensions and creatures existing in them is one popular theory. I also
like to point out that, if this is possible, then we needn't always look up at
the sky for aliens, they could be standing right next to us or living among us
at all times without our being able to realize them, and vice versa.
Rob
In article <01bcd56a$d06411c0$440893c3@thomasgr>, "Thomas Green"
<tomg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Adell <ad...@prodigy.net> wrote in article <343DBC...@prodigy.net>...
> > cdc,
> >
> > Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
> > demonsion???
> >
>
> If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist
> in other dimensions....parallel universes might be more likely candidate
> but (1) can they exist? and (2)how would one form a link between them? Any
> theoretical physicists out there who could explain this?
>
> Tom
Pretty funny, Tom. "Science" has nothing to say about life in other
"dimensions" because the whole idea is hogwash. To say that there could
be a "fourth" or "eighth" dimension is just idle speculation. Just
because we can mathematically deal with the idea of additional dimensions,
it doesn't follow that they exist or that life is involved.
So, your statement is correct, "dimensions" as places are just the dreams
of crappy SF writers.
What about the "second" dimension, for example? Our three dimensional
world CONTAINS two dimensional stuff. Does this mean that a hypothetical
fourth dimension would CONTAIN this three dimensional world?
To a scientist, a "dimension" is just an aspect of something that can be
measured. Some problems in physics, for example, can be most easily
solved if you postulate some extra dimensions. The dimensions don't have
to be real or "places" in any sense for this to work.