What event in your life turned you into a Skeptic/Atheist?

[Indigo Child]

No it doesn't.

Are these US aircrafts? If so, tell me which:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case287.htm
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case16.htm

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

You have proven my point:

You cannot deny the ETH given the data,
so you will deny the data.

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

ETH = Extraterrestrial Hypothesis i.e., UFO's are ET

I am not denying terrestrial explanations at all. I know most UFO cases can be explained by
terrestrial explanations, and in fact most reputed ufologists would not disagree. The first thing
they will do is try out all terrestrial explanations. However, when they fail, the only other explanations
that remain are ET.

Your planet explanation for the Japanese cargo ship UFO case fails. It does not fit the data.

It is you who are not being objective here. While, I will consider terrestrial explanationS and
ET explanations and not bat an eye lid, you will only consider terrestrial explanations, even if
they don't work. You are simply unable to consider the ET explanation because it is against your
beliefs.

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Again, your explanation does not fit the data. Planets do not produce moving radar signatures
that can be tracked, and they certainly do not shine intensely and produce radiation that would
light up the insides of the plane and heat that can be felt, and they do not
chase aeroplanes and move around them, and they do not look like massive objects many
times bigger than a plane.

Please produce evidence of this alleged later testimony that was different, so I can compare and contrast.

As always, so far, the evidence is on my side.

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

Further information:
Steucke added, "At 6:32 the JAL pilot requested
and received permission for a descent from 35,000
feet to 31,000." Air controllers asked if the
lights were still there, and were told, "It is
descending in formation." At 6:39 p.m.,20 minutes
after the lights first reported, the JAL crew said
it no longer saw the lights.

At 6:45 p.m. Fairbanks controllers authrized a
United Airlines northbound jet to make a 10 degree
turn to better view the JAL plane and asked the
United crew if it saw anything besides the Boeing
747. It did not. Nor did the JAL crew see the
lights again.
Is it just a coincidence that the lights decended in formation at the same time the plane descended? Planets appear to do this as well.
Further, it is often reported that the plane made a 10 degree turn and saw the object move, however, when the plane made the 10 degree turn, it was 1845 hours or 6 minutes after the plane no longer saw the lights.

[ProfWag]

Further information:
FAA says UFO on radar screen was just
a double image of jet

United Press International

ANCHORAGE - Federal investigators say
a review of radar tapes failed to
show a UFO shadowing a Japan Air Lines
cargo jet, contradicting reports made
by the crew and the air-traffic
controller who handled the plane.

[Indigo Child]

This testimony only shows proof of a cover up by the FAA. Later, an
FAA official spills the beans on this case, and reveals how the FAA covered
it up.

It's just like Roswell. First they report flying saucers, then later their reports
change to weather balloons.

It is interesting how you accept testimony when it suits your purposes lol

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

This is a case of testimony vs testimony.

Here read FAA Division Chief John Callahan's testimony:

For 6 years Mr. Callahan was the Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC. In his testimony he tells about a 1986 Japanese Airlines 747 flight that was followed by a UFO for 31 minutes over the Alaskan skies. The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed. There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation. This event was significant enough for the then FAA Administrator, Admiral Engen, to hold a briefing the next day where the FBI, CIA, President Reagan’s Scientific Study Team, as well as others attended. Videotape radar evidence, air traffic voice communications and paper reports were compiled and presented. At the conclusion of this meeting, the attending CIA members instructed everyone present that ‘"he meeting never took place" and that "this incident was never recorded." Not realizing that there was additional evidence, they confiscated just the evidence presented, but Mr. Callahan was able to secure videotape and audio evidence of the event.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSu ... asp?ID=290

Which is more likely of the two: An experienced pilot and his crew first report seeing 3 giant UFO's chasing them for 30 min, and ground radar also track the object, a few weeks later change their testimony into something entirely different AND a high ranking FAA division chief later comes out with documented, audio and video evidence showing there was a cover up, is lying and has forged everything.

or

The FAA covered it up

Using Occams razor the least amount of assumptions is required with the latter. So the most likely explanation here is the FAA covered it up.

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Nah, I just think you are gullible that's all. You've fallen
for another cover-up. It is clear to any intelligent person that
the FAA covered it up. For the following reasons

1) The first testimony and the testimony a few weeks later
is radically different. Similar to Roswell, where first they report
seeing a flying saucer, with occupants and strange metallic debris
with unusual properies, then all of a sudden its a weather balloon.

2) A high ranking FAA division chief has now come out and spilled
the beans that the FAA did cover it up, and has document, audio
and video evidence to prove it.

Any intelligent and rational person can clearly see the FAA covered it up.

Finally, the fact that this case is one amongst thousands where pilots have
seen these UFO's, shows that it is most likely this was yet another case of it.

As always the evidence is on my side.