Page 4 of 6
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 14:52
by stufarq
Ramone wrote:Case in point, In 1989, the Belgian Air force released at a press conference cockpit radar footage of an object that violated their air space and out flew their own jets and then dropped 10,000 feet in four seconds. A maneuver that would kill a human pilot. They didn't release the footage for ' kicks and giggles' they did so because they claimed they had no idea what it was that flying through their air space for which they had no defence against.
I may be thinking of the wrong incident, but weren't the photos of this noted to be remarkably similar to the US stealth bomber, which was in development at the time? It sparked a minor diplomatic row, which was all over the news, with the Belgians accusing the US of illegally testing their new aircraft in Belgian airspace. Even if this wasn't the same one, most cases of flying objects performing impossible manoeuvres can be explained by earth lights (see link in one of my previous posts).
Ramone wrote:Plus, Google the the Dropa Stones. They're not a dodgy goth band, they are evidence that we may of been visited by some of the craft / objects that appear on the NASA tapes. You may shrug ya shoulders but it's worth a look all the same.
They're not evidence at all, precisely because there is no evidence of the Dropa stones. The photos were discredited, no-one else has ever found the caves or any of the supposed references and some of the people supposedly involved don't appear to exist. And the first mention of them was by Eric Von Daniken, who lied about his source.
Ramone wrote:But to answer the original question about the moon landings being hoaxed..the answer if of course. Why have they not been back for decades and why don't they just do it again , but using the exact same materials and technology they used back in 1969?
Because there's no reason to. Been there, done that, no benefit in going back. Disproving a laughable conspiracy theory is hardly top of NASA's or the US government's agenda. The world has changed and no-one can justify the expense. These days, people are generally questioning the entire space programme, saying the money could be better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying I agree, but they simply couldn't get away with another moon shot without a spectacularly good reason. And even if they were to go back, of course they wouldn't use the same materials and technology. Flying there with less computing power than a modern washing machine would be a foolish risk given what's available now.
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 15:19
by eotunun
stufarq wrote:Ramone wrote:Case in point, In 1989, the Belgian Air force released at a press conference cockpit radar footage of an object that violated their air space and out flew their own jets and then dropped 10,000 feet in four seconds. A maneuver that would kill a human pilot. They didn't release the footage for ' kicks and giggles' they did so because they claimed they had no idea what it was that flying through their air space for which they had no defence against.
I may be thinking of the wrong incident, but weren't the photos of this noted to be remarkably similar to the US stealth bomber, which was in development at the time? It sparked a minor diplomatic row, which was all over the news, with the Belgians accusing the US of illegally testing their new aircraft in Belgian airspace. Even if this wasn't the same one, most cases of flying objects performing impossible manoeuvres can be explained by earth lights (see link in one of my previous posts).
The currently operated stealth fighters are crippled designs considering their aerodynamic capabillities, non of the manoevers described in the reports are near their capabillities. Then, you can fool radar, but the sight of such an aircraft is a different thing. I don't say the belgians saw UFOs there. I had Duvel myself, I can imagine what they saw.
stufarq wrote:Ramone wrote:But to answer the original question about the moon landings being hoaxed..the answer if of course. Why have they not been back for decades and why don't they just do it again , but using the exact same materials and technology they used back in 1969?
Because there's no reason to. Been there, done that, no benefit in going back. Disproving a laughable conspiracy theory is hardly top of NASA's or the US government's agenda. The world has changed and no-one can justify the expense. These days, people are generally questioning the entire space programme, saying the money could be better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying I agree, but they simply couldn't get away with another moon shot without a spectacularly good reason. And even if they were to go back, of course they wouldn't use the same materials and technology. Flying there with less computing power than a modern washing machine would be a foolish risk given what's available now.
The moon can be investigated form earth nowadays. Investigating the samples collected up there wasn't even finished yet if I'm not mistaken.
BTW: Ulf Merbold once said he preferred flying with Russian spacecraft for their simplicity. If something breaks, it's easier to fix. So the low tech computers *do* have their advantages. Alledgedly Nasa are buying all EDO-Ram they can get their hands on for their current vehicles as the thicker conductors in the older chips are not as vulnerable to cosmic radiation as the latest produced super efficient hardly-any-nanometres-at-all designs.
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 17:08
by Ramone
stufarq wrote:Ramone wrote:Case in point, In 1989, the Belgian Air force released at a press conference cockpit radar footage of an object that violated their air space and out flew their own jets and then dropped 10,000 feet in four seconds. A maneuver that would kill a human pilot. They didn't release the footage for ' kicks and giggles' they did so because they claimed they had no idea what it was that flying through their air space for which they had no defence against.
I may be thinking of the wrong incident, but weren't the photos of this noted to be remarkably similar to the US stealth bomber, which was in development at the time? It sparked a minor diplomatic row, which was all over the news, with the Belgians accusing the US of illegally testing their new aircraft in Belgian airspace. Even if this wasn't the same one, most cases of flying objects performing impossible manoeuvres can be explained by earth lights (see link in one of my previous posts).
I agree, that some of the cases are down to our mischievous American cousins testing aircraft and then being able to just dismiss them away as UFO's being seen by cranks and faulty equipment. The UFO that I was referring to was the silent Black Triangle ( with the three white lights and red centered red light ) tjat have been seen all over Western Europe and even here in Blighty. Yes I can see how some could of mistaken this for the F17 stealth an indeed in the USA, along with the B2, it sent panic among many townsfolks in rural counties. But this aircraft appeared to glide, silenty and then accelerate at enormous rates. The Stealth is a standard fighter jet with amazing radar avoidance capabilities - it was not designed to sneak up on you silently, hover then shoot off.
The Dropa stones are still some what of a mystery. I've read Von Daniken's books and they all appear to be filled with stories you hear down the pub - that he has then taken literally without any further investigation.
For instance his claims that the huge sheet of glass in India is proof of a nuclear explosion thousands of years ago, because nothing on earth could generate enough heat to form such a huge layer of glass! But no pictures or research was ever given. But in this modern day, Tunguska 1908 is the closest we will come to such an event - and the jury is still very much out on that one.
But , I'm of a very open mind - Yet to me the incident over Washington DC in 1952 still remains a mystery as does the Roswell case. When you consider that in the final report from the USAF about Roswell, they even went as far as to discredit every single witness by saying that each and every one of them got the time frame wrong by Five years!!
Watch the Skies..
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 17:19
by markfiend
Dude. Erich von Däniken is an outright fraud. It's called "making shît up."
The Dropa stones don't exist. Look at the
wikipedia article.
It's fine to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 17:32
by eotunun
Ramone wrote:
I agree, that some of the cases are down to our mischievous American cousins testing aircraft and then being able to just dismiss them away as UFO's being seen by cranks and faulty equipment. The UFO that I was referring to was the silent Black Triangle ( with the three white lights and red centered red light ) tjat have been seen all over Western Europe and even here in Blighty. Yes I can see how some could of mistaken this for the F17 stealth an indeed in the USA, along with the B2, it sent panic among many townsfolks in rural counties. But this aircraft appeared to glide, silenty and then accelerate at enormous rates. The Stealth is a standard fighter jet with amazing radar avoidance capabilities - it was not designed to sneak up on you silently, hover then shoot off.
I've seen the F117s that took off to bomb Serbia in 1999. Back then an uncle of mine lived near the airbase where the fighters were stationed for that time.
In civilian airspace they have the normal recognition and position lights: A red one on the right wing tip, a green one on the left wing tip, a red one under the belly, a rotating red one on the tail and the anti colision strobelight. Nothing remotely similar to the belgian sightings.
What fascinated me about them was how quiet their engines were. You could really hardly hear them. The shurely were not much over 3000 feet at that point, and a car going by would be much louder! I guess if they fly any higher than some 9000 feet you can't hear anything anymore.
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 17:34
by eotunun
markfiend wrote:Dude. Erich von Däniken is an outright fraud. It's called "making shît up."
The Dropa stones don't exist. Look at the
wikipedia article.
It's fine to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Däniken is a professional Hair Stylist and hobby author. Bubba.
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 18:11
by Ramone
Erich Von Douchebag is indeed a sensationalist and has no credence in the 'UFO' community. But despite his many failings, many of the Earth's mysteries keep me amused and although many 'researchers and documentarians/ experts try and force there conclusive evidence down your throat' - I still like to keep an objective mind open ( even if my brain does tend to fall out every now
) on many subjects.
This just can't be it. Standing on my doorstep looking up at the night sky,I like to think there's got to be more than just us and this that we see. I'd like to think we've not discovered every single creature on this planet, that this life out there and I'd love to see how the media would handle it if something really did happen.
I stand there with a wry smile on face..that is until some one passes by and shouts 'Oi dickhead, get back in ya house and for f**s sake put some pants on will ya!"
Oh , while I'm here, this is by far the most interesting topic I've ever come across on this and the other forum (Mishun) were you can't express anything that may be in the slightest out landish, unless it constitutes "verbally blowing Wayne" of course ( something I made reference to and was promptly told off for and then quickly sent to "the Dungeon" - mu-hahahahaha)
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 18:19
by markfiend
Ramone wrote:This just can't be it. Standing on my doorstep looking up at the night sky,I like to think there's got to be more than just us and this that we see. I'd like to think we've not discovered every single creature on this planet, that this life out there and I'd love to see how the media would handle it if something really did happen.
Oh totally
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 19:00
by James Blast
Ramone wrote:something I made reference to and was promptly told off for and then quickly sent to "the Dungeon" - mu-hahahahaha)
so that's why you've come back on here
Posted: 07 Sep 2008, 19:02
by sultan2075
eotunun wrote:markfiend wrote:Dude. Erich von Däniken is an outright fraud. It's called "making shît up."
The Dropa stones don't exist. Look at the
wikipedia article.
It's fine to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Däniken is a professional Hair Stylist and hobby author. Bubba.
I think my favorite fruitcake is Graham Hancock. I enjoyed his book about the Ark, many years ago.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 11:10
by markfiend
I have a few of Hancock's books. Enjoyably loopy.
But my favourite of all:
clicky
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 17:43
by moses
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:01
by Jeremiah
Obviously they did land on the moon, but faked the photos anyway because they found something there
they don't want us to see.
(Which for some reason was not visible in any of the photographs taken by unmanned probes prior to the Apollo mishun.)
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:09
by moses
Jeremiah wrote:Obviously they did land on the moon, but faked the photos anyway because they found something there
they don't want us to see.
(Which for some reason was not visible in any of the photographs taken by unmanned probes prior to the Apollo mishun.)
Elvis?
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:12
by mh
moses wrote:Jeremiah wrote:Obviously they did land on the moon, but faked the photos anyway because they found something there
they don't want us to see.
(Which for some reason was not visible in any of the photographs taken by unmanned probes prior to the Apollo mishun.)
Elvis?
Nah mate, the new Sisters LP.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:16
by EvilBastard
mh wrote:moses wrote:Jeremiah wrote:Obviously they did land on the moon, but faked the photos anyway because they found something there
they don't want us to see.
(Which for some reason was not visible in any of the photographs taken by unmanned probes prior to the Apollo mishun.)
Elvis?
Nah mate, the new Sisters LP.
You're both right, as it happens - what they saw was Elvis singing on the new Sisters LP.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:47
by markfiend
I thought Elvis was on Mars, not the Moon.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:49
by markfiend
I'm a bit miffed now, I can't find my copy.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 18:50
by moses
markfiend wrote:I thought Elvis was on Mars, not the Moon.
That's Eldritch
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 21:53
by stufarq
Ramone wrote:Case in point, In 1989, the Belgian Air force released at a press conference cockpit radar footage of an object that violated their air space and out flew their own jets and then dropped 10,000 feet in four seconds. A maneuver that would kill a human pilot. They didn't release the footage for ' kicks and giggles' they did so because they claimed they had no idea what it was that flying through their air space for which they had no defence against.
stufarq wrote:I may be thinking of the wrong incident, but weren't the photos of this noted to be remarkably similar to the US stealth bomber, which was in development at the time? It sparked a minor diplomatic row, which was all over the news, with the Belgians accusing the US of illegally testing their new aircraft in Belgian airspace. Even if this wasn't the same one, most cases of flying objects performing impossible manoeuvres can be explained by earth lights (see link in one of my previous posts)
I agree, that some of the cases are down to our mischievous American cousins testing aircraft and then being able to just dismiss them away as UFO's being seen by cranks and faulty equipment. The UFO that I was referring to was the silent Black Triangle ( with the three white lights and red centered red light ) tjat have been seen all over Western Europe and even here in Blighty. Yes I can see how some could of mistaken this for the F17 stealth an indeed in the USA, along with the B2, it sent panic among many townsfolks in rural counties. But this aircraft appeared to glide, silenty and then accelerate at enormous rates. The Stealth is a standard fighter jet with amazing radar avoidance capabilities - it was not designed to sneak up on you silently, hover then shoot off.
Having reacquainted myself with the details, the lights kept changing colour and were independent of the black triangles, changing their formations several times. Without wishing to harp on (much), their behavious was entirely consistent with earth lights. The triangles themselves, though, are harder to explain.
Ramone wrote:This just can't be it. Standing on my doorstep looking up at the night sky,I like to think there's got to be more than just us and this that we see. I'd like to think we've not discovered every single creature on this planet, that this life out there and I'd love to see how the media would handle it if something really did happen.
Yes, but there you have it. We'd all
like to think there's something out there beacuse we
don't like to think that life really is this s**t.
markfiend wrote:I have a few of Hancock's books. Enjoyably loopy.
But my favourite of all:
clicky
Yes, I've always thought of Hancock as a bit of a daft old uncle who you just try to ignore. Until I saw this. Now I think the man needs serious medical help.
Ramone wrote: But in this modern day, Tunguska 1908 is the closest we will come to such an event
Well, until next Wednesday, anyway.
Posted: 08 Sep 2008, 22:51
by nowayjose
Ramone wrote:Standing on my doorstep looking up at the night sky,I like to think there's got to be more than just us and this that we see.
Scotty, Warp 11, let'er smoke.
Unfortunately won't work.. too far away.
Good or bad?
Posted: 09 Sep 2008, 09:11
by markfiend
stufarq wrote:Having reacquainted myself with the details, the lights kept changing colour and were independent of the black triangles, changing their formations several times. Without wishing to harp on (much), their behavious was entirely consistent with earth lights. The triangles themselves, though, are harder to explain.
IMO if you see three lights in a dark sky, it's quite easy to perceive that as a dark triangle with a light at each corner. It has been known before; the big multiple-witness case over Phoenix Arizona a few years back --
Clicky -- was aircraft flares, but many witnesses reported seeing some kind of structure between the lights.
stufarq wrote:markfiend wrote:I have a few of Hancock's books. Enjoyably loopy.
But my favourite of all:
clicky
Yes, I've always thought of Hancock as a bit of a daft old uncle who you just try to ignore. Until I saw this. Now I think the man needs serious medical help.
To be fair,
Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon isn't one of his.
Ramone wrote: But in this modern day, Tunguska 1908 is the closest we will come to such an event
*sigh* *Puts on debunking hat -- and then decides not to bother.*
Posted: 09 Sep 2008, 16:46
by stufarq
markfiend wrote:IMO if you see three lights in a dark sky, it's quite easy to perceive that as a dark triangle with a light at each corner. It has been known before; the big multiple-witness case over Phoenix Arizona a few years back --
Clicky -- was aircraft flares, but many witnesses reported seeing some kind of structure between the lights.
True, but the
photo most often seen does appear to show a distinct triangle rather than just one that the viewer has filled in on their own. I'm sure it's still an optical illusion of some sort, I just don't have an immediate explanation for it.
markfiend wrote:To be fair,
Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon isn't one of his.
My mistake. I'd assumed that the link was leading to a Hancock book and didn't actually check the name on the cover. Perhaps not quite in the loony league, then, but still a self-deluded sensationalist.
Posted: 09 Sep 2008, 17:02
by markfiend
Well...
That particular photo didn't show up until 13 years after it was allegedly taken.
I've also seen photographs of this type deliberately faked using the following method:
Take a sheet of dark blue paper with a triangle of black paper glued on it.
Pierce small holes at each corner of the black triangle, and one in the centre, going through both layers.
Hold up between photographer and a bright light source.
Wobble slightly.
Take long-exposure unfocussed picture.
The results are almost indistinguishable from the photo you link to.
Posted: 09 Sep 2008, 17:11
by stufarq
markfiend wrote:Well...
That particular photo didn't show up until 13 years after it was allegedly taken.
I've also seen photographs of this type deliberately faked using the following method:
Take a sheet of dark blue paper with a triangle of black paper glued on it.
Pierce small holes at each corner of the black triangle, and one in the centre, going through both layers.
Hold up between photographer and a bright light source.
Wobble slightly.
Take long-exposure unfocussed picture.
The results are almost indistinguishable from the photo you link to.
Then I'd say that's pretty much that one explained!
