Dan Smith - May 5th - Part One Dan Smith-May5-07-...
Dan Smith - May 5th - Part Two
Dan Smith-May5-07-...



UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - http://www.openmindsforum.com/
« UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed »

Jun 1, 2007, 7:42pm





UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - WWW.OpenMindsForum.com :: General :: UFO/ Alien / Exobiology :: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
«    [Search This Thread] [Add Bookmark] [Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 Author Topic: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed (Read 51,295 times)
jeddyhi
Co-Administrator
*****
Serpo Forum Co-Founder
member is offline

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,275
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1425 on Today at 6:11pm »

What if it is terrestrial. Not necessarily USA but from a foreign government. The writing and markings are certainly not English or American in any way. This fact alone makes me wonder why none of the three separate witnesses didn't contact authorities.

A perfect example of calling 911 to report a strange craft.

And another.

But yet a strange craft with foreign or alien markings, hovering silently, gets people running to their keyboards and not their phones.....strange indeed!
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

[image]
spf33
Full Member
***
member is online




[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 93
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1426 on Today at 6:11pm »

more from ufocasebook's latest opinion via alien-ufos.com:

"...only about 2.5 tp 3.5 feet in diameter; more or less...All we have to go on is witness reports, photos in various locations; most around power lines that are highly visible"

"http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showpost.php?p=316706&postcount=13

ok, 2.5"-3" in diam is just silly to suggest.
also, out of the 12 chad\raj images, exactly 3 have telephone poles, hardly what i call most.
raj already said the thing didn't appear to be interested in or interacting with the poles.

i think it's really strange how quickly all these ufo researchers\enthusiasts are dismissing this story.



Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
admin
Co-Administrator
*****
Open Minds Forum Founder
member is offline

[avatar]

"It's been a long, strange trip..."


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,763
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1427 on Today at 6:13pm »

Lol! Chris, you have probably just sent half the new guys/gals packing! Chris is indeed 'well connected' in the highest echalons. 8-) Very.

If you are unaware of developments at OM over the last year or so - it may be worth getting up to speed - I think I can safely say, you won't be disappointed. ;)

And it's All Good. 8-)
« Last Edit: Today at 6:18pm by admin » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Imagine: http://disclosure-ufo.blogspot.com/
colorsymphony
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1428 on Today at 6:26pm »


Today at 6:11pm, spf33 wrote:
i think it's really strange how quickly all these ufo researchers\enthusiasts are dismissing this story.


it's sickening. we cant trust any of these people. its basicly evidence of how disinfo works. people who give statements that seem purposely designed to mislead others are definately not people i can trust.
« Last Edit: Today at 6:27pm by colorsymphony » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
jenks
New Member
*
member is online




[email] [send pm]

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1429 on Today at 6:39pm »

Hello, this is my first post here, and I am not Chad (sorry) :-(. I seem to remember that some of Chad's photos were taken with a film camera. It seems to me that the negatives of those photos would be the best evidence available, if there were a way to validate them.

Yours,

Chris
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
10538
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 200
Location: California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1430 on Today at 6:40pm »


Today at 3:47pm, colorsymphony wrote:

if its military, then it makes sense for them to put strange writing on it. to hide who it belongs to seems like an obvious action for someone owning this thing. to purposely make it seem like a possible alien craft, which they have done with the writing and overall design and technology involving why it flys, in my honest opinion, is a whole other agenda on their behalf. the writing and "silence" from the gov and media says a lot.


I'm going to have to disagree with this. The military has never done this in the past. Never have they put markings on an experimental craft to trick the public. They simply never let the public see it. So why is the damn thing flying over Capitola?

Another point is the military would never fake a UFO. It's totally backwards to there intentions. They have more to fear from disclosure than from people knowing about an experimental craft. More likely is the military trying to falsely take credit for ET UFOs, which is what likely happened with the Phoenix Lights where they claimed it was A10s dropping flairs.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
10538
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 200
Location: California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1431 on Today at 6:47pm »


Today at 3:54pm, endzone wrote:
Hello all, I was posting over at casebooks forums but after all the disinfo thrown at us from the mod and his helper, I have had enough of em'. They have tried to tell us all now, that not only are these craft real, but they are man made for certain and are powerline drones, and they can't be alien in nature because real ones aren't "shaped" like these. Yet I still believe the idea that a powerline company would be in possesion of a drone that uses advanced tech that our own miltary doesn't show being used in public is totally ludicris.

I was invited here earlier by one of the members here and I have to say I wasted much time over there when the real study is obviously here. It gladdens me to see others only use conjecture for what it really is here, just conjecture! I am beginning to believe the folks over at casebook have been infiltrated by a disinfo agent.


Hey Endzone,

Glad you finally made it over. Yeah, I'm the one who invited you (I go under a different handle over there) because you were like the only person over there who had any common sense. Dude, you spoke the truth but it fell on deaf ears.

It's good to have you here. I look forward to reading your posts.
« Last Edit: Today at 6:48pm by 10538 » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
colorsymphony
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1432 on Today at 6:48pm »

10538, i understand that.


Today at 5:58pm, colorsymphony wrote:

i understand all of these points. IF its militiary it just doesn't make sense for them to be flying these things around in the open, it almost seems like an accident, like it wasn't supposed to happen - that is why i said its possible the ETs actually sent these gov crafts out, from where ever or what ever base they are loacted at, to make something the gov has planned (the other agenda i mentioned) blow up in their own face. the ET's using the gov's own evil plan against them to make disclosure happen soon. this could be the kick off.
something fishy is going on, and i know some of you can smell it.

« Last Edit: Today at 6:48pm by colorsymphony » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
10538
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 200
Location: California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1433 on Today at 7:03pm »


Today at 5:41pm, organelle wrote:
A couple of notes:

1. If the craft is human-engineered, putting it out where anyone can (and probably will) take pot-shots at it, and disguising it in nonsense-writing doesn't make sense to me. Anyone who can photograph this thing in this way can certainly pump lead into it, and many probably would. Additionally, putting long paragraphs of nonsense writing on the small arms makes pretty much zero sense (to humans, in general). In fact, putting nonsense writing on it -vastly increases- the chances of it being shot at, or shot down.

Ergo: Chances it's a military project are exceedingly slim. Similar problem with 'private inventor' hypothesis.

2. If the craft were military, we'd probably see either recognizable equipment or at -least- mount-points for recognizable equipment. Mount points or equipment? None that I can see.

3. -If- the thing was actually flying in the atmosphere, it's either human engineered, or not. In this case the vast preponderance of evidence would point to: not.


Here, here! As Mr Spock would say, "Logical, flawlessly logical". I'd like to add one more. I wish I could take the credit for it but I think it was Midas who came up with it. If this were from Earth it would have landing gear.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Double_Nought_Spy
Full Member
***
member is offline




[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: Colorful Colorado
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1434 on Today at 7:06pm »

Someone posted this link, up there a ways. This is about the "Alabama" sighting from last year.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftdrone.html

"We found Mr. Smith's sighting to be authentic based on his frustration once accused of photoshopping the photo (digital manipulation). To read his most recent email I could tell that he didn't have a clue as to what photoshopping was and instead was up in arms and decided to give up on the UFO community since it appears to have let him down. Mr. Smith’s photo actually gave us more insight since without it, we would not have had seen the multiple power line occurrences. It was only when we saw Mr. Smith’s photo did we begin to look in a different direction."

So does anyone else think this standard of evidence is firmly in the LMH realm? I mean, we have a photo that most don't seem to find convincing, and I think three email messages. So a convincing story (convincing to some, at least, but not to me) in an email exchange and a dodgy looking photo is enough for a "finding" of "authentic." I'm still scratching my head over this one. I have often gotten the impression that LMH decides whether to believe a story based on her first impression of an early contact. This makes no sense to me, especially from people who describe themselves as "investigators." Am I missing something? Maybe some power of discernment I haven't a clue about?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
10538
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 200
Location: California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1435 on Today at 7:17pm »


Today at 6:11pm, jeddyhi wrote:
What if it is terrestrial. Not necessarily USA but from a foreign government.


If true, what does that say about our Homeland Security?


Quote:
But yet a strange craft with foreign or alien markings, hovering silently, gets people running to their keyboards and not their phones.....strange indeed!


Those two sightings out in the boonies we can easily dismiss. But the Capitola event, one has to believe the craft could have been seen by thousands. But how many people actually look to the skies as they go through their daily routine? And how long did the object actually remain visible over town? Raj did say the thing left in a hurry.

I still like the idea that somebody had about taking out an ad in their newspaper. I think many would come forward after that.
« Last Edit: Today at 7:21pm by 10538 » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Maro Farez
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 25
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1436 on Today at 7:29pm »

Very insightful theories! One theory would have to be close to being right. If these things start showing up all over the US with no PUBLIC explanation, I would have to go with ET or the start of an ET hoax scenario.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
regence
Junior Member
**
member is online

[avatar]


[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 17
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1437 on Today at 7:32pm »


Today at 6:40pm, 10538 wrote:
More likely is the military trying to falsely take credit for ET UFOs, which is what likely happened with the Phoenix Lights where they claimed it was A10s dropping flairs.


The analysis of the Cognitech video and the one done later by ASU clearly shows that the 'Phoenix lights' that some witnesses claimed were hovering over the city were actually falling beyond the mountain range, exactly where the military was testing flares. Jim Dilettoso (the source for much of the hype) is not a credible witness, having lied about his academic credentials. Other less charitable investigators called Dilettoso a fraud. Either way, his UFO analysis falls apart the more you look at it.

So what is more likely to be the correct explanation? UFO's and a military coverup or flares boosted by a fraudulent investigator?

A great story on the whole flap is here.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/ufo/ufo4.html
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
spf33
Full Member
***
member is online




[email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 93
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1438 on Today at 7:36pm »


Quote:

If you are unaware of developments at OM over the last year or so - it may be worth getting up to speed - I think I can safely say, you won't be disappointed. ;)
And it's All Good. 8-)


where would be the best place to start?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
organelle
Junior Member
**
member is online

[avatar]


[homepage] [email] [send pm]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14
 Re: Cell, Chad and Raj Craft - Arms across the...
« Reply #1439 on Today at 7:38pm »


Today at 7:03pm, 10538 wrote:

Today at 5:41pm, organelle wrote:
A couple of notes:

1. If the craft is human-engineered, putting it out where anyone can (and probably will) take pot-shots at it, and disguising it in nonsense-writing doesn't make sense to me. Anyone who can photograph this thing in this way can certainly pump lead into it, and many probably would. Additionally, putting long paragraphs of nonsense writing on the small arms makes pretty much zero sense (to humans, in general). In fact, putting nonsense writing on it -vastly increases- the chances of it being shot at, or shot down.

Ergo: Chances it's a military project are exceedingly slim. Similar problem with 'private inventor' hypothesis.

2. If the craft were military, we'd probably see either recognizable equipment or at -least- mount-points for recognizable equipment. Mount points or equipment? None that I can see.

3. -If- the thing was actually flying in the atmosphere, it's either human engineered, or not. In this case the vast preponderance of evidence would point to: not.


Here, here! As Mr Spock would say, "Logical, flawlessly logical". I'd like to add one more. I wish I could take the credit for it but I think it was Midas who came up with it. If this were from Earth it would have landing gear.


Now here's another strange thing. The small arms are flat, and 'stair-stepped' in that there are (I count six, on a medium-length leg) steps descending down from the ring toward the points of the arms. Ok, so it's stair stepped. But -why-? What possible benefit could this configuration confer? More strangely still, each step appears to be (on the 'bottom' of the craft) covered in text.

But it gets stranger. The short stair-stepped arms each sport -support struts- connected to the top of the craft. This implies 'load bearing'. What sort of load would these arms bear? They -might- be 'landing legs' - yes? Except that none of the configurations of the craft would allow them to function this way!

In the first images (cell phone) it has two shortish legs, and two longish (at least one of which is segmented). Since the (non-long) arms are angled 'down', landing would result in a very unstable situation (in terms of horizontal relation to ground). The craft would 'tilt', placing undue stress on the long arms, and additionally, 'just being wrong' to any human engineer.

In the Chad images, it has a single long arm, and what I see as either 4 stepped arms of the same length or two sets of two different lengths (this is my current read on it, happy to be corrected). In this configuration, the same thing happens if it lands, only worse. It will tilt down toward the long arm, again putting a lot of weight on it and not resulting in what human beings would consider a 'stable landing condition'.

In the Raj images, the situation is even worse, in terms of the arms acting as landing gear. By now, I am sure you can do the math yourself.

Now let me underline a few things:

If the thing lands, it doesn't have what looks like human-engineered landing gear. If it landed on a flat surface, it would not be 'stable' in the way a human engineer would -habitually desire-. Nor would it be parallel to the flat landing area, another thing -nearly every human aircraft evinces - and even 'flying saucers' are reported to evince.

There is an easy answer to this: It 'lands' around the point of a cone.

Now, don't just go and decide this is -what is true- because it looks like it fits. But we can play with the idea...sure, ok, it lands around the point of a cone linke a doughnut would. Great...now just explain to me why the arms are stair-stepped, and why they have load-bearing braces?

-what load are they designed to bear-???

It could be that they are designed to bear impact load from running into things. If this was the case, the shape of the braces should support this (we need an engineer to examine the legs and bracings to determine if this configuration most likely matches that function). However, it that is the case, why is the longest arm, the most delicate arm, and probably the most important of the arms missing the support struts? And here's another problem, if they expected the small arms to run into things, and didn't want them to bend or break off (again, WHY are these arms here at all?) then why did they stair-step the arms? Wouldn't that make it more likely that the arm would be damaged by an impact? Could the reverse be true? (possible, again, we need an engineer).

Pax

« Last Edit: Today at 7:42pm by organelle » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

New Ways of Knowing: http://www.organelle.org/
«    [Search This Thread] [Add Bookmark] [Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 


Quick Reply
Message:

Shortcut to Quick Reply box: Alt+Q. Shortcut to post message: Alt+S.

The Alien Seeker News

Click to discover what is: - 'Exempt From Disclosure'


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free



This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Board!