What Shall We Do about Radar-Confirmed UFOs?

[Shad]

Prove it.

Your report ends in a dead link. You take a report at face value nothing more. Remember it is your postion that this report means something yet your own source goes to a dead website. Hilarious.

Police captains and officers who give their names, report what they observed, and verify the independent reports of other eyewitnesses are credible--more credible than anonymous posters on discussion boards who call themselves "Shad". .

To no credible agency that matters.

Prove it.

A radar lock is possible as it is locking on to the radar signature. Bragg scattering which creates false contacts can be locked on to because the nature of a radar system..... It is the purpose of using radar guided munitions.....

Radar lock-on - Wikipedia
Radar tracker - Wikipedia

What the hell does this mean?

Radar interference on one system does not mean it is replicated on all systems. Also the radar contracts are not simultaneous so separate radars picking up a contact at different times can mean it is an echo.

Are you trying to say something here that isn't circular?

Look up how radar systems function, son.

Prove it.

You have no evidence of any jamming, any source of jamming, no detection of jamming, nothing. I have no need to disprove that which you have never proved to begin with.

Prove it.

See above.

Prove it.

So you don't dispute any of the facts or conclusions that the UFOs cannot be accounted for as false echoes or human aircraft.

I have no need for evidence to point out the loaded jargon by a UFO hack determining the conclusion within the report they are arguing is a conclusion of UFOs. This is called begging the question, son.

I have pointed out the report on interference while you have nothing but unconfirmed reports from nobodies and no report from the military supporting your conclusion. I dispute your weak interpretation of "aliens". You merely dismiss reasonable conclusion in favor of the "Greys"

Prove it. I didn't see the report states any "presupposition. Prove it.

Then you can not read or lack reading comprehension, son. First off your so called quote calls the radar contact a contact then suddenly it becomes an aircraft with zero evidence that it is one. Signal now become aircraft with no identification by the pilots themselves.

"signal was picked up on yet a different radar system"
"Minutes later, one pilot is able to lock onto a extraordinarily fast-moving target for 6 seconds"
"this aircraft seen on radar"

 

[Shad]

Link to it, quote it and provide the time.

Go back through the thread to find the video son, put in some effort.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The topic still makes you nervous, doesn't it? You'd probably feel better if you tried to get out your religion.

Ten-four, Mulder.

 

[Nous]

Your report ends in a dead link. You take a report at face value nothing more. Remember it is your postion that this report means something yet your own source goes to a dead website. Hilarious.



To no credible agency that matters.



A radar lock is possible as it is locking on to the radar signature. Bragg scattering which creates false contacts can be locked on to because the nature of a radar system..... It is the purpose of using radar guided munitions.....

Radar lock-on - Wikipedia
Radar tracker - Wikipedia



Radar interference on one system does not mean it is replicated on all systems. Also the radar contracts are not simultaneous so separate radars picking up a contact at different times can mean it is an echo.



Look up how radar systems function, son.



You have no evidence of any jamming, any source of jamming, no detection of jamming, nothing. I have no need to disprove that which you have never proved to begin with.



See above.





I have no need for evidence to point out the loaded jargon by a UFO hack determining the conclusion within the report they are arguing is a conclusion of UFOs. This is called begging the question, son.

I have pointed out the report on interference while you have nothing but unconfirmed reports from nobodies and no report from the military supporting your conclusion. I dispute your weak interpretation of "aliens". You merely dismiss reasonable conclusion in favor of the "Greys"





Then you can not read or lack reading comprehension, son. First off your so called quote calls the radar contact a contact then suddenly it becomes an aircraft with zero evidence that it is one. Signal now become aircraft with no identification by the pilots themselves.

"signal was picked up on yet a different radar system"
"Minutes later, one pilot is able to lock onto a extraordinarily fast-moving target for 6 seconds"
"this aircraft seen on radar"

So apparently what you are suggesting is that the Glons CRC radar system malfunctioned--despite spending 55 minutes checking the system before sending up the F-16s. Then the different radar system of the F-16s malfunctioned so that they miraculously showed the same false echoes as the Glons radar system, including the disappearance of the false echoes at the same time. And simultaneously, dozens of people, including police officers and captains, independently had the same hallucination of color-changing lights in the sky corresponding to location of the false echoes that were miraculously appearing on two different radar systems. Then a different radar system in Semmerzake malfunctioned and showed the same false echo that the malfunctioning ground and on-board radars showed. Then the malfunctioning Glons and Semmerzake radar systems miraculously showed the false echo that the malfunctioning on-board radar systems have near Beauvechain. And all these multiple episodes of radar malfunctioning where identical false echoes miraculously showed up simultaneously on different systems continued for 75 minutes then ceased, miraculously at around the same time when witnesses on the ground ceased hallucinating lights in the sky.

Then the next day, there was none of this miraculous malfunctioning of different radar systems and none of the police officers had their hallucinations again.

What rational person would believe all that?

And you still haven't been able to provide any evidence by which to conclude that the Mexican Air Force video of moving objects even vaguely resembled oil rig flares. Right?

 

[Shad]

So apparently what you are suggesting is that the Glons CRC radar system malfunctioned--despite spending 55 minutes checking the system before sending up the F-16s.

Nope as interference can occur regardless of maintain

Then the different radar system of the F-16s malfunctioned so that they miraculously showed the same false echoes as the Glons radar system, including the disappearance of the false echoes at the same time.

There is no evidence of the echos being the same position.

And simultaneously, dozens of people, including police officers and captains, independently had the same hallucination of color-changing lights in the sky corresponding to location of the false echoes that were miraculously appearing on two different radar systems.

You report ends in dead links so is of no value.

Then a different radar system in Semmerzake malfunctioned and showed the same false echo that the malfunctioning ground and on-board radars showed.

Again the echo is is not stated to be the same nor in the same position, only that a contact was detected.

Then the malfunctioning Glons and Semmerzake radar systems miraculously showed the false echo that the malfunctioning on-board radar systems have near Beauvechain.

Aerial interference

Radar - Wikipedia

And all these multiple episodes of radar malfunctioning where identical false echoes miraculously showed up simultaneously on different systems continued for 75 minutes then ceased, miraculously at around the same time when witnesses on the ground ceased hallucinating lights in the sky.

See above

Then the next day, there was none of this miraculous malfunctioning of different radar systems and none of the police officers had their hallucinations again.

Yes as interference is not a 24/7 effect nor has the same magnitude the next day.

What rational person would believe all that?

One that actually read your so-called report to see that at no point is the contact the same across all systems

And you still haven't been able to provide any evidence by which to conclude that the Mexican Air Force video of moving objects even vaguely resembled oil rig flares. Right?

Yes I have in the video. More so you have not established it was moving to begin with.

 

[Yerda]

How do you account for these UFOs, such as the ones noted here? Are there rational reasons to conclude that the Belgian and Mexican incidents (for instance) are not of extraterrestrial origin?

Maybe.

In order for x to be extraterrestrial in origin there must exist something that is extraterrestrial in origin. We have no independent reason to believe that there exists something extraterrestrial. In that situation the confidence that we can have that it isn't extraterrestrial is fairly high.

Does that strike you as unreasonable?

Anyway, that was quite interesting.

 

[Nous]

There is no evidence of the echos being the same position.

The BAF report by Major Lambrechts says it repeatedly.

What is the evidence that that report is false?

And you still haven't been able to account for the objects seen in the Mexican Air Force video.

 

[Nous]

Maybe.

In order for x to be extraterrestrial in origin there must exist something that is extraterrestrial in origin. We have no independent reason to believe that there exists something extraterrestrial.

Well, what would be a better--i.e., more independent--reason to conclude that a flying object is of extraterrestrial origin than independent credible witnesses (such as multiple police officers) observing a flying object that can't be identified as a human-produced object, and independent radar systems showing that object to be performing maneuvers and feats that human technology cannot produce?

 

[Yerda]

Well, what would be a better--i.e., more independent--reason to conclude that a flying object is of extraterrestrial origin than independent credible witnesses (such as multiple police officers) observing a flying object that can't be identified as a human-produced object, and independent radar systems showing that object to be performing maneuvers and feats that human technology cannot produce?

Well, I have to say that I don't know how to take someone's claim that they saw an object that can't be human tech. How do they know that?

 

[Nous]

Well, I have to say that I don't know how to take someone's claim that they saw an object that can't be human tech. How do they know that?

Cashman notes 3 (or 4?) characteristics that rule out human technology:

• Terminal profile of the UFO indicates a suicidal dive toward the ground. The UFO approaches at least 1000 feet of the ground descending at a constant rate of 1000 feet per second.
• Descent and ascent performance of the UFO are significantly in excess of that for standard high-performance aircraft.
• Linear acceleration performance of the UFO is significantly in excess of that for standard high-performance aircraft.

In addition, the UFO was apparently becoming radar-invisible at times, which was a technology that only the US had at the time. As Leslie Kean explains:

As events unfolded over months and years in Belgium, all mundane, conventional explanations were ruled out. It became very clear what the objects were not, but there was still no clarity about what they were.

Eventually, the only possible option left, no matter how remote, was that the objects were F-117A stealth fighters or other secret American military aircraft, sent out on some kind of experimental, clandestine exercise. General De Brouwer thought it extremely unlikely that secret aircraft would be sent to fly repeatedly over Belgium without any official notification, in violation of air rules, since no U.S. Air Force overflight requests had been received. He was also aware that the technological abilities the objects displayed were beyond the capacity even of experimental aircraft--which, the general points out, remains the case today. Nonetheless, he made inquiries to the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, and to other NATO partners through informal contacts with their attaches.

The answer was exactly what he expected. And the results of his inquiry are spelled out in a U.S. government document, classified at the time, but since released through the Freedom of Information Act. The March 1990 memo "Belgium and the UFO Issue" notes that De Brouwer asked whether the objects were American B-2 or F-117 military aircraft, stating that he made the inquiry despite his clarity that "the alleged observations did not correspond in any way to the observable characteristics of either U.S. aircraft." The document further states that "the USAF did confirm to the BAF [Belgian Air Force] and Belgian MOD [Ministry of Defense] that no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in the Ardennes area [l] during the periods in question." De Brouwer reported to me that he was also assured privately by an American official that the U.S. had no "black program" that could have caused these multiple sightings.​

 

[Shad]

The BAF report by Major Lambrechts says it repeatedly.

What is the evidence that that report is false?

The lack of your source going to any credible agency. Your source is a UFO site that ends in the dead link. Remember it is your claim, or rather the UFO sites, yet there is no evidence to show this. I can point this out. Also given that nature of UFO hoaxes it is a reasonable conclusion.

And you still haven't been able to account for the objects seen in the Mexican Air Force video.

Yes I have, oil well flares and dumb pilots.

 

[Nous]

The lack of your source going to any credible agency. Your source is a UFO site that ends in the dead link. Remember it is your claim, or rather the UFO sites, yet there is no evidence to show this. I can point this out. Also given that nature of UFO hoaxes it is a reasonable conclusion.



Yes I have, oil well flares and dumb pilots.

There is no need to bother me with your nonsense. If you come up with an assertion that you can demonstrate to be true, be sure to let me know. So far all you've done is show your own claims to be false.

The fact that you have an anti-extraterrestrial religion doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is no need to bother me with your nonsense. If you come up with an assertion that you can demonstrate to be true, be sure to let me know. So far all you've done is show your own claims to be false.

The fact that you have an anti-extraterrestrial religion doesn't mean it's true.

I wonder if the aliens have a sense of irony.

 

[Nous]

I wonder if the aliens have a sense of irony.

You should concentrate on developing a sense of logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You should concentrate on developing a sense of logic.

It was stolen from me when I get anally-probed.

 

[Nous]

It was stolen from me when I get anally-probed.

I don't doubt that!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't doubt that!

By the way, they told me to tell you to stop standing outside at night, bent over, with your pants down. They're not going to probe you anymore, so stop being pushy about it.

 

[Nous]

By the way, they told me to tell you to stop standing outside at night, bent over, with your pants down. They're not going to probe you anymore, so stop being pushy about it.

Another example of your missing sense of logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Another example of your missing sense of logic.

Another example of your lack of awareness of irony. Maybe they took that out of your butt too?

 

[Nous]

I've never known anyone who becomes so agitated by a few undisputed facts about UFOs. What a stupid religion.