Witnesses for UFO Congressional hearing

Who are you to tell whether they're wrong? Who are you to claim that the sole credible evidence for extraterrestrial visits is a personal alien handshake or whatever you would consider to be 'proof'.

In a court of law, expert witness testimonies from Pentagon colonels, a CIA general, two former mission astronauts, and dozens of military and intelligence employees, would suffice to sentence a man to a certain death. That should mean, I hope, that these testimonies are reflecting the truth. Yet you do not even try to consider that.

Which makes you either a brainwashed military stooge, or a fundamentalist geocentric nag.

Na-na-na, na-nyah-na . . .
I know you are, but what am I?


Jeez, what passes for intellectual debate around here sure sounds like kindergarten name-calling!
A shaky sighting that teaches us nothing concrete is still a shaky sighting, an unknown, a piece of non-information.

The more time we spend obsessing about credibility, that these are expert authorities, honest, credible testimonies, the more time we are *not* looking at the actual testimony.

If I claim I saw something I couldn't explain, then it doesn't matter how well-respected and worshipped I am as an authority. I still saw something I couldn't explain. It's unexplained. I could imagine all kinds of green men and mythical gods, but that's still the realm of imagination. What does witness credibility have to do with anything? We still have to examine the evidence and see what the evidence itself indicates. Why avoid that?

I can't even begin to be skeptical or a believer until I find the actual data that teaches us what there is. I need some links here. Not hyperbole, mysterious trends or wild claims, just links to the actual information. What's so hard about sharing the information? You can even tell me how stupid I am, but I'd still like to get the information.

Show me. Please. What is the most convincing case for ETs?
Thank you.

last time

http://extraterrestrial-life.net/links.htm

Take it from there.

Ah, would that it were truly the last time we'd hear from you on this silly topic . . .

You have the right to remain silent, Setanta. Take some suspicion off your back.

Gordon Cooper

As i feared, Wolf is not about to remain silent . . .

Whatever you're smoking, Wolf... please share.

None of the people you've listed above would be any more credible than anyone else in a court of law, testifying on a personal experience. You seem to think that because someone attains a certain amount of credibility and name recognition, that they become experts on everything, qualified to speak out on any subject they wish. That's bullshit and I can't believe you're so stupid as to keep making that claim.

A CIA general speaking out on nuclear physics is no different than you speaking out on nuclear physics. He simply isn't qualified in that field. An astronaut isn't qualified to talk about medicine. A military employee isn't qualified to talk about international finance. Just because they have some 'big job' that impresses you doesn't mean that their word on subjects that they are ignorant in means squat.

Figure it out and do rent a clue.

Actually, for the longest time, the only qualification for an astronaut was flight experience.

The real UFOs
OK. How about a full review of the evidence? I always like to start with a very good example from Iran in 1976.

Note that all links are directly to the US National Security Agency.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

Also:
Joint Chiefs of Staff report concerning the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976,
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

"Now You See It, Now You Don't" by Captain Henry S. Shields, HQ
USAFE/INOMP
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo16.pdf

posted originally by Ivan Seeking @ www.able2know.com

Okay, I've followed quite some time this topic.

I've just taken a quick read of these sites

Frequently Requested and Released Records

Some quite nice ideas for more topics of same calibre there!

Looked at it, laughed at it, still no objective evidence.

When do you plan on presenting any?

World Trade Center UFO pre 9-11


http://www.scifi.com/happens/happens_1_big.mov

Jerri DeAngelo - Lead Special Effects Creator Adoni Films


Opinion on authenticity of video file known as WTC UFO.

I am the lead special effects creator for Adoni Productions and Adoni Films.

I have viewed over 600 frames of the video file known as THE WTC UFO. I viewed it many times frame by frame, the file is approximately 20 seconds in length in .mov format rendered at approximately 30 FPS (frames per second)

The video was clearly shot in one take where a 180-degree view of the Manhattan skyline was shot from inside a helicopter.

At various times throughout the video, the helicopter rolls from side to side, the skyline is observed in a manner consistent with a live shot.

As the camera moves or zooms in on an object there is no clear manipulation of the video through a digital effect.

Objects remain consistent with a live panoramic sweep outside and inside the helicopter.

There is no evidence of editing this shot, as to splicing together multiple takes or digital creations.

The sound is synched perfectly to the video.

Certain anomalies appear in the frames that are consistent with an auto focus home use video camera.

The camera used was not a professional level video camera in my opinion, although it did work out very well for this shot.

The shot starts off with a north westerly view of the Manhattan Skyline in which the World Trade Center is clearly visible.

A small object is viewable near the North Tower at the approximate height where the second plane crashed into the WTC on 911.

Once the small object appears on the screen, the female in the video asks what is that while pointing to the small image near the WTC.

The cameraman zooms in and a UFO is seen hovering near the WTC.

Normal auto focus anomalies appear in the frames due to auto focus stabilization abilities the camera obviously has.

The UFO then heads easterly in front of the helicopter, a blurry sequence of frames then appear with blurred images of objects inside and outside the helicopter.

These features are consistent with a continuous live shot made in one take, it would be impossible to correctly blur every object inside and outside the helicopter if this was a created effect.

While such a move could be created by a high priced studio, tell tale signs of editing such a created sequence would be obvious under high resolution.

Such created scene anomalies are not in this sequence of events.

High Resolution analysis of created video or digital effects using even advanced equipment that is available, all show a clear drop into a scene where an object materializes.

At normal viewing speeds these anomalies are not viewable.

And they do not appear in this video.

http://www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml

I have a few things to share with everyone here. I came across the following images posted at http://www.earthfiles.com. You may have to pay a subscription fee to access the specific news files that I got the images from. As well i'm not to sure if posting these pictures from the site is against the registration agreement but i'm going to do it anyway

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3

Now the story on how I came across this information. Last weekend I went to visit some relatives of mine in Saskatoon SK. One of them being my cousin. On the Saturday night of the weekend I was there we went to party at a friend of hers who I find out is one of the leading crop circle research experts for the province. I said to myself, "There is such a thing??" (Website that she is involved with) So, a few hours into the gathering and she invites a few of us into her living room where she brings out samples of wheat that were in some of the crop circles around SK. Now me being a farm boy and growing up around wheat all my life I see these piece of wheat that leave me pretty much speechless. They were bent at 90 degree angles and had bubbled at the corners. To my knowledge I didn't know wheat could bend and hold at 90 degree angles. With my experience it either breaks because it is to dry or it bends like a straw because it is wet. I have never seen it bubble. And not only in one spot but 5 or 6 spots. She had other examples that just blew my mind. We discussed a few other topics but I could go on about that for hours.

So what I am getting to here is that in one night I went from "Crop circles are made by ropes and boards" to ".. now where did I put my telescope and satellite dish". Once I start to think about it, its funny at just how many people I know personally that have said or know someone that has seen UFO's to even being abducted. And I grew up in a small town in central Manitoba.

I guess there is a fine line between logical farmer sceptic and someone that believes there is something out "there" with intelligence the same if not more then ours. And to think all it took was some wheat

I guess I should stop rambling now heh

Fluid, you are truly credulous. Some one examined a vidoe "frame by frame?" Puh-leeze, celluloid film produces "frames," video is a continuous recording of data. Your "evidence" becomes suspect from the beginning. Video can be altered without leaving traces of the alteration by running the signal through a computer. Celluloid film can be altered as well, but a sharp investigator can spot the alertation.

I refer you to a dictionary, to look up a definition of "gullible."

I honestly believe it's much more than "gullible" Setanta. Wolf just claimed that this forum has a "contract" with "the agency" that we "hide behind".

I believe you are making a grave insult to the merely gullible.

There seems some an invasion of the UFologists in progress. Head for the hills...

I hadn't noticed that CdK, when do we get our checks? I certainly hope that we're not doing this for free!

He picked a bad example there, our company does low voltage security systems for industrial customers. The quality of video tape, and often particularly in criminal actions, is a subject upon which we need to be able to demonstrate a high degree of expertise. As well, these days, a good many of the high-res cctv cameras we sell and install are best used with DVR's (digital video recorders). As it is commonly known that the data from a DVR can be altered, security departments are increasingly encouraged to use video signals as a form of alert, or an investigative tool, and definitely not as evidence.

Dart,

It is because of some postings to "UFO believer" type sites telling them to come here for an example of how people refuse to open their minds when presented with "evidence".

Setanta,

Yeah, I want my check too. I cover up the evidence of a global UFO conspiracy and what do I have to show for it?

sigh

We need better CIA contracts, maybe we should threaten to disclose all and reveal UFOs for what they really are.