17 replies to this topic

[Admin]

More UFOs filmed at 2009 Southport Air Show

I visited the Southport Air Show and gained unexpected video footage of an inexplicable object - that apparently flew beneath a warplane. My new video recording poses more questions about air safety issues at this show.  I initially ran the story like this on North West UFO Research (NWUR) website.

The Southport Air Show 2009 saw the family and I make the usual pilgrimage to the Birkdale Sand hills for a free view of the action. Admission charges on the beach itself were to our mind highly extortionate, so we decided on the freebie sand hill option.

I took a lot of videos with my trusty little canon PowerShot of the various aeroplanes which included the Red Arrows, a Spitfire, a well-publicised Vulcan Bomber and several biplanes.  
However, I was not aware that lightening would strike twice after the previous year’s UFO photos in which I had depicted a mysterious object that was travelling extremely close to the RAF jet.

This was last year's story and I leave the web link intact for reference:

HERE


Two of the many videos that I took at the 2009 Air Show held a seemingly very fast UFO (silver on top and dark below), which flies in from the left and travels to the right of the camera frame beneath one of our most lethal and rapid aircraft – the Eurofighter.


A Eurofighter makes a sharp turn as a swiftly- paced UFO moves into frame from the left

Just like the previous year, I was unaware of this object until I returned home and downloaded the videos onto my PC. I have to admit that my hair stood on end when I saw the unknown and very fast entity apparently fly right beneath the war plane. My daughter Jasmine looked equally bemused and agreed with me that no one would believe this story. Nevertheless – there it was for all to see.

WATCH VIDEO HERE

I suggest maximising to full screen to see the UFO better and then try clicking the pause button on and off to get an enhanced freeze-frame view of the swift object. Pause the video after 12-14 seconds and you will see the object travel underneath the warplane.


Up close and personal. This bizarre photograph is a greatly enhanced image crop of the UFO that travelled very fast beneath the Eurofighter. What was it?

NB. I noted also in the NWUR report that this is not the first time UFOs have been seen near the Eurofighter. A similar event appears on YouTube from the town of Grantham, UK wherein a strange craft is pictured by a Eurofighter.

Is ET being attracted to our most sophisticated warplanes and if so why?  

But there was even more.

We also spotted a cylindrical black unidentified object on a still photo, which was apparently travelling in close proximity to a white US plane in the display. Something is happening in the air space at this popular Air Show and we do not know exactly what it is.


A dark cylindrical UFO seen here close to a US plane


Now after last season’s farce in seeking to get the somewhat indifferent MoD’s attention – is it worth asking them if they spotted anything unusual on their radar? Did the pilots notice anything strange in the skies over Southport on that particular afternoon? I also sent this video to other researchers.

Our airspace is seemingly being compromised on a regular basis by unidentified entities but do the authorities really know what is happening up there? This issue creates a great deal of controversy, yet believers (I do so hate that word) and sceptics alike agree that something extraordinary is happening in the skies above us – the question is what exactly is it?

Is the MoD not in the least bit interested when unknown objects are filmed by several witnesses, at various locations, passing close by to our high-tech warplanes?

I would have thought that such a potential threat was something to take a little bit more seriously.


Pat Regan

Author of UFO: The Search for Truth.
UFOResearch
Amazon

See Also  Did UFO Compromise Air Safety at Southport Air Show 2008?

[patregan]

I still not convinced what the unidentified entity was under the war plane.

[Slaphappy]

It could be another military aircraft either landing or taking off in the distance. The clip really doesn't prove anything really special other than object is in the distance. The Euro-fighta is flying near where other aircrft craft are taking off and landing.


Kinda lame. if you ask me.

[patregan]

No sorry - you are quite wrong

No other aircraft were in the air when this military monster was in action due to sensible rules on air safety.

Quote

The Euro-fighta is flying near where other aircrft craft are taking off and landing

No wrong again. Quite some distance from the landing and taking off zone.

[Trinitrotoluene]

It is a bird. Go to the 32nd second of the video and you will see similar looking things that show they were flying in the area at the time.

Looking at it logically you have to remember:

• Hundreds if not thousands of people were watching the airshow and none of them reported or recorded a UFO
  
• The items is too ambiguous to study properly, zooming in on that video at that level of detail with an object either that small or far in the distance is pointless in terms of photogrammetry as it is impossible to gauge size
  
• Occams Razor - the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one, and in this case the simplest explanation by far is it is a bird.
  
• The object doesn't show up on other videos I've just watched at the same airshow which gives credit to the suggestion the object is small (further evidence it is a bird)
  
• Whoever recorded the video obviously didn't think it was UFO or they would have changed focus to the object

I don't see any evidence whatsoever to even credit this being anything out the ordinary to be honest.

[patregan]

Yes - lots of birds about but this was not one. Totally different.

I took the clip and only noticed the UFO later.

All reported in the book in detail.

The close-ups also appear to show a round or basket-shaped object.

I have discredited many items on my travels but this one had me baffled.

[Trinitrotoluene]

So you recorded the video? What resolution is the video that you are doing the crops on?

I'd love to know how you know it is not a bird.

[patregan]

I think the images of the close cropped UFO are around 361 KB and the ones with the plane in are a little bit larger about 1400-1800 KB. I cropped in to get a better look at the object. I have done the same with many bird shots and yet the image of this object appears very different in profile. The whole point of UFOs in that we cannot always identify what is seen. I cannot prove it is not a bird and you cannot prove that it is, excuse the pun Trinitrotoluene but it is NOT rocket science. lol...

Quote

Hundreds if not thousands of people were watching the airshow and none of them reported or recorded a UFO

Not so. Permit me to explain to you.

Where I was standing was a good way from the main event. I like to get in the tall hills a few miles away and there were only a few people there at that time.

Quote

The items is too ambiguous to study properly, zooming in on that video at that level of detail with an object either that small or far in the distance is pointless in terms of photogrammetry as it is impossible to gauge size

Yet we have no option but to zoom in for a better look in these instances. Do you dispute this? Ufology would come on in leaps and bounds if we could only get the the official aviation authorities more interested in these things.

Quote

the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one, and in this case the simplest explanation by far is it is a bird.

I believe that to be true in many cases, yet I have also found that scientific materialists will go to any lengths to deny what is in front of their eyes. I have dismissed many irregular bird profiles in clips but I do not feel this applies to this particular image, and I say that as a life-long bird watcher and naturalist who 'actively' seeks out bird photography.

Quote

The object doesn't show up on other videos I've just watched at the same airshow which gives credit to the suggestion the object is small (further evidence it is a bird)

So you therefore believe that UFOs have to be "small"? why is that so please? If you are referring to alien craft or military drones etc could they NOT be small too? Do you consider all "small" UFOs to be "birds"?

In fact I must reiterate that I dismissed many of my own videos that DID indeed hold birds that day. However, I have now discovered another clip that holds a similar UFO to the above. As with this UFO the shape is uniform, symmetrical and unchanging unlike any irregular bird silhouette therein.

Quote

Whoever recorded the video obviously didn't think it was UFO or they would have changed focus to the object

Trinitrotoluene - with respect, you are making erroneous assumptions here again. I was recording the planes as always and you now know that I (a regular contributor on 'your' website) took the clip. The UFO was only there for a very brief period so naturally I had no time to focus on the object. It was only noticed later at home.

Until we can get the authorities to take greater interest in what is whizzing about in our air space many such instances as the above will occur. We do not hove the technology to decipher many of the UFO images that come along but they do.

This image like many others has been observed by other Ufologists and they initially have made the very same suggestions as you, but later dismissed them as I did.

I think you are however missing a main point Trinitrotoluene here, via getting yourself embroiled on what this object either is or is not. We need to be asking the paid authorities what they are doing and how they are dealing with the thousands of UFOs that enter our air space. So far, their answer seems to be that they have just shut down their UFO facility...

I hope this helps you. Thanks so much for your kind interest.

[Trinitrotoluene]

Quote

I think the images of the close cropped UFO are around 361 KB and the ones with the plane in are a little bit larger about 1400-1800 KB. I cropped in to get a better look at the object. I have done the same with many bird shots and yet the image of this object appears very different in profile. The whole point of UFOs in that we cannot always identify what is seen. I cannot prove it is not a bird and you cannot prove that it is, excuse the pun Trinitrotoluene but it is NOT rocket science. lol...

This level of debate is known as a logical fallacy, more specifically an informal logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad ignoratiam". Just because no-one can prove what the item is, doesn't mean it is alien in origin. In regards to the resolution, I was referring to the resolution of the original video that you recorded.

Quote

Not so. Permit me to explain to you.

Where I was standing was a good way from the main event. I like to get in the tall hills a few miles away and there were only a few people there at that time.

The fact that it wasn't caught on anyone elses video gives credence to the fact that the object is extremely small (almost like a bird)!

Quote

Yet we have no option but to zoom in for a better look in these instances. Do you dispute this? Ufology would come on in leaps and bounds if we could only get the the official aviation authorities more interested in these things.

I can't really comment on the aviation part of it, but for zooming in on pixelated videos - waste of time. Especially when the object is only a few pixels big in the first place. If I zoom in one of those birds I can bet you I can find something that looks similar and none bird shaped (the video appears to have been removed though).

Quote

I believe that to be true in many cases, yet I have also found that scientific materialists will go to any lengths to deny what is in front of their eyes. I have dismissed many irregular bird profiles in clips but I do not feel this applies to this particular image, and I say that as a life-long bird watcher and naturalist who 'actively' seeks out bird photography

I have seen that behaviour in scientists, but I am a scientist who looks at things with an open mind. All the evidence weighs against the being anything out of the ordinary.

Quote

So you therefore believe that UFOs have to be "small"? why is that so please? If you are referring to alien craft or military drones etc could they NOT be small too? Do you consider all "small" UFOs to be "birds"?

In fact I must reiterate that I dismissed many of my own videos that DID indeed hold birds that day. However, I have now discovered another clip that holds a similar UFO to the above. As with this UFO the shape is uniform, symmetrical and unchanging unlike any irregular bird silhouette therein.

I don't believe UFOs have to be small, an unidentified object can be any size. I would be interested to see that other video.

Quote

Trinitrotoluene - with respect, you are making erroneous assumptions here again. I was recording the planes as always and you now know that I (a regular contributor on 'your' website) took the clip. The UFO was only there for a very brief period so naturally I had no time to focus on the object. It was only noticed later at home.

I believe this is a reasonable assumption to make. It depends on how you recorded the video and what with, information I obviously don't know.

Quote

Until we can get the authorities to take greater interest in what is whizzing about in our air space many such instances as the above will occur. We do not hove the technology to decipher many of the UFO images that come along but they do.

What technology do the authorities have that would give them greater ability to analyse UFO images?

Quote

I think you are however missing a main point Trinitrotoluene here, via getting yourself embroiled on what this object either is or is not.

Just as I think you are over analysing the initial video looking for something that is unlikely to be there. You were with a few other people by your own admission, did they see anything? Did anyone indeed see anything?

[patregan]

Quote

Just because no-one can prove what the item is, doesn't mean it is alien in origin

No disagreement there with me. Did I state it was extraterrestrial? You are once again going into your ‘assumption’ mode.

Quote

The fact that it wasn't caught on anyone elses video gives credence to the fact that the object is extremely small (almost like a bird)!

I find that remark quite nonsensical and you are once again in error. You are simply repeating what we have previously disagreed on. Repetition will 'not' further our little debate.

Quote

I have seen that behaviour in scientists, but I am a scientist who looks at things with an open mind. All the evidence weighs against the being anything out of the ordinary.

I fear your so-called “evidence” is simply the mirror image of your inner prejudice over this given situation my friend. I too have an “open mind” although you seem rather vexed at me for some reason. Why so please,  have I offended you in some way? You started this recall, not me.

Quote

I don't believe UFOs have to be small, an unidentified object can be any size

Well – then we certainly agree on that major point at least. Lol.

Quote

I believe this is a reasonable assumption to make

I alternatively believe it was an ‘unreasonable’ assumption to make. I do note though that you seem 'big' on assumptions at times.

Quote

What technology do the authorities have that would give them greater ability to analyse UFO images?

You claim to be a “scientist” yet this question seems very illogical and absurd to me. Surely you cannot be so naive to think that the MoD etc do not have greater technological abilities that Joe Public with their massive resources to analyse detailed images etc? You are joking – yes?

Quote

Just as I think you are over analysing the initial video looking for something that is unlikely to be there. You were with a few other people by your own admission, did they see anything? Did anyone indeed see anything?

Well – I think you need to open your allegedly “open” mind a little further my friend. I did not notice anyone at that time recording footage as I was. A few elderly folks with children playing in the sand really do not make for a precise body of dedicated UFO witnesses. I also did not bother to write to the local papers requesting for the few individuals on those hills to contact me with UFO sightings from that particular afternoon. Furthermore, our local press are not today very interested in ‘any’ UFO stories – so go figure! Moreover, just because one person sees or records something for a few brief seconds does NOT mean that others will spot it. No, you are just nit-picking here I feel for the sake of it!

You charge me with “over analysing” and jump in here as the master critic.  Alternatively, you appear to take the archetypal position of the ultra closed – minded UFO dissenter who wishes to disparage anything that remains fully unidentified.

I must tell you, after long experience of creating my last UFO book and working on North West UFO Research that this type of overtly sceptical conduct genuinely ‘deters’ many previously undecided UFO witnesses from coming forwards with their stories.

Kindly explain then to readers how this demeanour will encourage such people from wanting to post on your UFO website forums.

I have to tell you that many witnesses ponder for ages about whether or not to tell their stories - your typical sceptical attitude is exactly what drives them underground so how will that help create site hits herein? I am being both honest serious here with you Trinitrotoluene! I may also add that perhaps if you are going to persist herein you would do me the courtesy of using your 'real' name, as I do, thanks.  


I have been forced to delete many unwarranted obscenities under several UFO videos on YouTube, after cranks saw fit to belittle the honest footage shared therein. I am of course NOT accusing you of this but I thought it prudent to mention this here as an example of what one has to put up with after one simply asks the question - "what was that?"

Thanks again.

Pat

[Trinitrotoluene]

Quote

No disagreement there with me. Did I state it was extraterrestrial? You are once again going into your ‘assumption’ mode.

No, but it is reasonable to assume that you think it is something that is "out of the ordinary"

Quote

I find that remark quite nonsensical and you are once again in error. You are simply repeating what we have previously disagreed on. Repetition will 'not' further our little debate.

I am not in error, Pat. There are loads of videos in Youtube showing the Eurofighter in the air. You stated yourself you were a "few miles" from where the airshow was. I'd stake a guess that you can see the Eurofighter with the naked eye from 2 miles away. The angular size of the object that was on the video is quite clearly smaller than the Eurofighter. From that I can ascertain two things. It is either smaller than the eurofighter or it is further away. I'd go back to analyse the video in more detail but it appears you have removed it, so I can't.

Repitition gets everywhere when the thoughts potrayed have their origin in logic. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you are right.

Quote

A Eurofighter makes a sharp turn as a swiftly- paced UFO moves into frame from the left

I'd love to know how you can tell the object is moving when the only point of reference you have is a moving eurofighter (and on top of that you are moving the camera). That is directional movement from two objects in the scene.

Quote

I fear your so-called “evidence” is simply the mirror image of your inner prejudice over this given situation my friend. I too have an “open mind” although you seem rather vexed at me for some reason. Why so please, have I offended you in some way? You started this recall, not me.

I am not vexed at you at all Pat, I am simply anaylsing the evidence that you have provided and coming to a conclusion. Just because I do not agree with you, doesn't mean I am vexed at you. I didn't start anything, you did by putting an article in the public domain - that then allows the article to be critically analysed.

Quote

I alternatively believe it was an ‘unreasonable’ assumption to make. I do note though that you seem 'big' on assumptions at times.

My assumptions are based on logical derivation of the evidence provided. In videos like this you cannot help but make assumption, just like you originally assumed it was something that was a "craft" of some sort; assumption.

Quote

You claim to be a “scientist” yet this question seems very illogical and absurd to me. Surely you cannot be so naive to think that the MoD etc do not have greater technological abilities that Joe Public with their massive resources to analyse detailed images etc? You are joking – yes?

No, I really am not. This isn't CSI where the government have magical computer programs that rebuild images that were only a few pixels big in the first place. They may have certain software yes, but it will be nothing that joe public does not have access to. A lot of the enhancing image algorithms are already in the public domain but even then they are limited.

Quote

Well – I think you need to open your allegedly “open” mind a little further my friend. I did not notice anyone at that time recording footage as I was. A few elderly folks with children playing in the sand really do not make for a precise body of dedicated UFO witnesses. I also did not bother to write to the local papers requesting for the few individuals on those hills to contact me with UFO sightings from that particular afternoon. Furthermore, our local press are not today very interested in ‘any’ UFO stories – so go figure! Moreover, just because one person sees or records something for a few brief seconds does NOT mean that others will spot it. No, you are just nit-picking here I feel for the sake of it!

I would normally agree with you if not for the fact that you were near a major airshow with thousands of people. Like I said earlier. You have prevented me from analysing this further by removing the video.

Quote

You charge me with “over analysing” and jump in here as the master critic. Alternatively, you appear to take the archetypal position of the ultra closed – minded UFO dissenter who wishes to disparage anything that remains fully unidentified.

I have seen quite a few UFO videos where I have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation for what was there. However, most of the time there IS a reasonable explanation. Suggesting I am closed minded based on my simple analysis of one video is a very closed minded thing to say. I am amused that you have labelled me a close-minded UFO dissenter because I do not simple believe that the contents of one video are anything that cannot be logically explained.

Quote

I must tell you, after long experience of creating my last UFO book and working on North West UFO Research that this type of overtly sceptical conduct genuinely ‘deters’ many previously undecided UFO witnesses from coming forwards with their stories.

No, Pat. Critical analysis of a video does not make me the subject of "deterring" people to come forward with UFO stories - you are being absurd.

Quote

Kindly explain then to readers how this demeanour will encourage such people from wanting to post on your UFO website forums.

Because we built this site to encourage comments from all sides. A place were there can be debate on both sides in a neutral environment. One thing I have noticed is you take major issue with anyone who has anything critical to say about your work. Instead of getting all hemped up about it, you should welcome the debate.

"
I have to tell you that many witnesses ponder for ages about whether or not to tell their stories - your typical sceptical attitude is exactly what drives them underground so how will that help create site hits herein? I am being both honest serious here with you Trinitrotoluene! I may also add that perhaps if you are going to persist herein you would do me the courtesy of using your 'real' name, as I do, thanks."

My typically sceptical attitude? Everyone should have a sceptical attitude including yourself.

Not having my real name, by the way, doesn't make my points any less valid. Everybody on this site is not only welcome but is ENCOURAGED to write under a pseudonym. It is all about personal security, I see you have done this a number of times before when a debate has gotten a little extensive. Stop doing it. A "real name" makes no-ones opinions or stories any less valid than you posting with your real name and is irrelevant to discussion on this board.

As someone who analyses this kind of thing Pat, you come across overly very defensive whenever anyone has anything negative to say about your work. You mentioned the mindset of people who are skeptical to UFO videos, I see the mindset of someone who is hell bent on making most visual anomalies something they are not.

[Trinitrotoluene]

I have just watched the second video you have uploaded and I really do find it amusing that you think that it something other an a bird. Did you record this one too?

I also have a few simple questions for you.



Also, I have watched about 20 videos from the Eurofighter display at Southport in 2009. Many of them in a much better resolution than the one you have provided. There are many more I have not had chance to look at yet. I assume, seeing as though you are a UFO researcher that you have analysed all of these videos looking for the same "anomaly"? I only ask because when I get back to my main PC I am going to do a proper analysis on multiple videos. Now I know roughly where the video was shot I can extrapolate the position of the eurofighter in relation to the other videos.

Also, now I know where you are stood I am in a better position to do an analysis on the first video, that you have inexplicably removed. Can you put it back up please?

Of course you have already done this. Right?

[Trinitrotoluene]

Quote

Where I was standing was a good way from the main event. I like to get in the tall hills a few miles away and there were only a few people there at that time

I also feel you have bent the truth here. Can you show me on a map where you were stood? As I calculate it you were stood near marine drive. Regardless, that is no where near a "few miles" from the event nor are they "tall hills"

Quote

Not so. Permit me to explain to you.

Where I was standing was a good way from the main event. I like to get in the tall hills a few miles away and there were only a few people there at that time

This makes this comment an outright lie. Not five hundred yards, maybe slightly more from where you were stood there are hundreds, if not thousands of people. Why are you manipulating what you say to make it appear like you were in a better position to see this object. Not only that your comment above that you were a few miles away on tall hills was an attempt to refute my explanation that the other thousands of people did not see it. Not only were you a small distance away from those people, they were all closer to the "UFO" than you were putting them in a BETTER position to see whatever it was!!!

Where are all the reports from the "Unidentified craft"? Where are all the videos on youtube? Why do none of the other videos recorded (many of which were shot closer to that location AND in better quality show the UFO? There are none, and I will tell you why. It was a bird.

[patregan]

Quote

I am not in error, Pat. There are loads of videos in Youtube showing the Eurofighter in the air. You stated yourself you were a "few miles" from where the airshow was. I'd stake a guess that you can see the Eurofighter with the naked eye from 2 miles away. The angular size of the object that was on the video is quite clearly smaller than the Eurofighter. From that I can ascertain two things. It is either smaller than the eurofighter or it is further away. I'd go back to analyse the video in more detail but it appears you have removed it, so I can't.

I must say that you seem too be now bordering on paranoia about this issue. Why so?
No my friend, the video is still there so you are in error once again.

Quote

stake a guess

Yes that about defines this entire situation that you are now fixated upon ...lol

Quote

Repitition gets everywhere when the thoughts potrayed have their origin in logic. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you are right.

And the reverse applies to you of course – or is this just a one way ticket?

Quote

I am not vexed at you at all Pat, I am simply anaylsing the evidence that you have provided and coming to a conclusion. Just because I do not agree with you, doesn't mean I am vexed at you. I didn't start anything, you did by putting an article in the public domain - that then allows the article to be critically analysed.

I respect your liberty to hold a fair opinion. I alternatively deem that you should grant the same courtesy to others. Critical analysis is fine and I have had plenty of that over many images from myself and others. Yes – I was invited to place stories on your website yet I did NOT realise that I would be subjected to this sort of ongoing and rather distasteful pursuit, which to be quite honest is now bordering on fanaticism. This is why I feel you are vexed at me for some, as yet, undisclosed reason.

Quote

My assumptions are based on logical derivation of the evidence provided. In videos like this you cannot help but make assumption, just like you originally assumed it was something that was a "craft" of some sort; assumption.

Assumption is not proof, it is simply assumption.

Quote

No, I really am not. This isn't CSI where the government have magical computer programs that rebuild images that were only a few pixels big in the first place. They may have certain software yes, but it will be nothing that joe public does not have access to. A lot of the enhancing image algorithms are already in the public domain but even then they are limited.

Ah right – so you clearly ARE joking – or are we to believe that YOU are privy to in-depth data and information in H.M. Gov’s official circles. Who needs government spies when we only have to ask you about what is happening behind the scenes? I have spoken with several leading researchers who fail to share your ‘assumptions’ herein my friend on this issue.  

Quote

I would normally agree with you if not for the fact that you were near a major airshow with thousands of people.

I have explained this to you, yet you seem strangely eager to push and push... What is your particular problem here? Do you wish me to keep repeating myself, ad finitum?

Quote

Like I said earlier. You have prevented me from analysing this further by removing the video.

Nope, wrong again the video is STILL there.  I have prevented you from NOTHING.

Quote

I have seen quite a few UFO videos where I have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation for what was there. However, most of the time there IS a reasonable explanation. Suggesting I am closed minded based on my simple analysis of one video is a very closed minded thing to say. I am amused that you have labelled me a close-minded UFO dissenter because I do not simple believe that the contents of one video are anything that cannot be logically explained.

Yes – many times we can deduce what is being seen. However, at times we cannot. There is no argument here. My suggestion of you being closed-minded is based on logical analysis of your conduct on this thread that you previously alluded to also. Your subsequent posting have not changed my mind about that belief.

Quote

because I do not simple believe

Yes, this is the whole point. What you “believe” is not any kind of hard, indisputable evidence we can rely upon but merely your private belief and nothing more. This indicates that you are in effect contradicting the alleged “logic” you somewhat comically tell us that you reply on within this interesting debate.

[patregan]

Quote

No, Pat. Critical analysis of a video does not make me the subject of "deterring" people to come forward with UFO stories - you are being absurd.

I have to tell you that you are exceptionally mistaken on this point. My experience as a writer and researcher tells me that witnesses can be incredibly fickle and indecisive. The type of storm-trooper criticism that you have clearly displayed on this thread will certainly deter many who may have previously wanted to come on your forum. I tell you this is all fairness and honesty as a writer who naturally wants to see this site do well. It is your actions that remain clearly “absurd” herein. Rather than agreeing to differ with me in an amicable and adult manner, you persisted in this quest to get in the last word.  Now that is what I call “absurd.”

Quote

Because we built this site to encourage comments from all sides. A place were there can be debate on both sides in a neutral environment. One thing I have noticed is you take major issue with anyone who has anything critical to say about your work. Instead of getting all hemped up about it, you should welcome the debate.

So, am I NOT debating with you right now herein?
I feel that you are now becoming quite discourteous with comments like “all hemped up”. Alternatively, it is you my friend that is getting “all hemped up”- strange comment to make anyway..lol
I have always defended my stance and I have found this has at times brought others, who fail to understand me, to similar conduct that you are admirably displaying herein. I now feel that this gives further evidence that you DO in fact have issues about me. As they say – if you can’t stand the heat...etc

Quote

My typically sceptical attitude? Everyone should have a sceptical attitude including yourself.

Now that is a plainly childish remark – anyone who has read my works, including some on YOUR site, will realise that I have been VERY sceptical of many issues. I really cannot win with you though can I?
You tell me to be more sceptical then in the next breath you tell me to welcome debate – kindly make up your mind here so that your postings actually make common sense – thanks.

[patregan]

Quote

Not having my real name, by the way, doesn't make my points any less valid. Everybody on this site is not only welcome but is ENCOURAGED to write under a pseudonym. It is all about personal security, I see you have done this a number of times before when a debate has gotten a little extensive. Stop doing it. A "real name" makes no-ones opinions or stories any less valid than you posting with your real name and is irrelevant to discussion on this board.

Quote

Stop doing it.

I beg your pardon – are we now seeing open debate/ freedom of speech being suppressed herein; is this a dictatorial demand?
I write under my genuine name and stand by what I say. I respect your right to post ‘behind’ a pseudonym however strange it may be.
I have nevertheless tackled many who have taken snide snipes at me including several councillors and MP’s helpers. I have seen one or two taken into litigation also – they believed that their abuse under the cloak of anonymity would shield them from justice. They were very WRONG!

Quote

As someone who analyses this kind of thing Pat, you come across overly very defensive whenever anyone has anything negative to say about your work. You mentioned the mindset of people who are skeptical to UFO videos, I see the mindset of someone who is hell bent on making most visual anomalies something they are not.

So would you prefer me NOT to send any more freely-given UFO data and articles your website? I am getting very confused feedback here. One tells me to send it in, as it is just what is required, yet YOU appear to be going out of your way to drive me away. Clarification would be so nice thank.

Quote

I have just watched the second video you have uploaded and I really do find it amusing that you think that it something other an a bird.

There you go back to your unscientific “assumptions” again. Rather tedious if fact. Go on, keep at it!

.

Quote

Also, I have watched about 20 videos from the Eurofighter display at Southport in 2009. Many of them in a much better resolution than the one you have provided. There are many more I have not had chance to look at yet. I assume, seeing as though you are a UFO researcher that you have analysed all of these videos looking for the same "anomaly"? I only ask because when I get back to my main PC I am going to do a proper analysis on multiple videos. Now I know roughly where the video was shot I can extrapolate the position of the eurofighter in relation to the other videos.

Also, now I know where you are stood I am in a better position to do an analysis on the first video, that you have inexplicably removed. Can you put it back up please?

Of course you have already done this. Right? .

Have you considered a career with the UFO HUNTERS – I can put you in touch with the director if you wish. The video is STILL there as I stated previously. Your ongoing, and I must say strangely ‘obsessive’, assumptions about the UFO, plane and the position of filming sadly change nothing.
Be happy in your “belief!”

[patregan]

Quote

I also feel you have bent the truth here.

So not I am not only absurd but also a liar. Are you really sure you want me to say around here?

Quote

Can you show me on a map where you were stood? As I calculate it you were stood near marine drive. Regardless, that is no where near a "few miles" from the event nor are they "tall hills"

And here we see that your calculations are once again in error. You assume I was at Marine Drive – wrong, I was in the Birkdale Sand hill. The hills here are tall yes – what is the problem with that? You seem hell bent of arguing with me over EVERY issue my friend. I just do not get your drift herein. If you do NOT value my input, as your co-owner does, then kindly say so.

Quote

This makes this comment an outright lie. "

That is an imprudent and potentially libellous statement, which I strongly object to. Kindly retract it now!

This goes beyond freedom of speech and is one of the reasons why partial anonymity can be dangerous.

Quote

Not five hundred yards, maybe slightly more from where you were stood there are hundreds, if not thousands of people. Why are you manipulating what you say to make it appear like you were in a better position to see this object. Not only that your comment above that you were a few miles away on tall hills was an attempt to refute my explanation that the other thousands of people did not see it. Not only were you a small distance away from those people, they were all closer to the "UFO" than you were putting them in a BETTER position to see whatever it was!!!

No again you have misinterpreted this entire situation and I reject such blatant abuse.

I am quite frankly appalled at your attitude. You asked me where I stood, I told you on the sand hills with a few folks etc, which I utterly true and I have family witnesses. You then twist this situation to suit your odd agenda. The people were in the distance and NOT with me. What they saw or did not was nothing to do with me.

I am just honestly saddened by your attitude in all this and suggest you check with your co site owner to see if I am now seen as excess baggage on your site. Why you have taken this course in the “public domain” is most odd to say the least.

All I have done is present you with many freely-written articles in good faith, at your co-owners request, and for this I now appear to be the subject of your ill-treatment which is extremely bizarre.

I say again – let’s agree to differ.

[Trinitrotoluene]

I am not going to debate the meaning of the word "lie" with you Pat. You originally put yourself into a position that suggested the others could not have seen it because you were "a few miles away" on "tall hills". I am not going to debate tall hills with you but you were quite clearly not a few miles away. I am not going to argue defamation laws with you either but needless to say I will not be retracting anything as I believe it a view that any reasonable person would make. You said you were a few miles away, you weren't. That's the end of it.

You have addressed every point by attacking my character and not answering the original questions, the only ones I really cared about (and that was the discussion regarding the video).

If you don't like it, you don't have to reply. You are entitled to post whatever you want this is the reason I created this forum. Your attitude when people are skeptical of your work or question it is shocking.

Quote

Ah right – so you clearly ARE joking – or are we to believe that YOU are privy to in-depth data and information in H.M. Gov’s official circles. Who needs government spies when we only have to ask you about what is happening behind the scenes? I have spoken with several leading researchers who fail to share your ‘assumptions’ herein my friend on this issue.

I previously worked with the Government, in the IT industry.

If you want to carry on debating without attacking my character, I more than welcome it. Please stick to the content, though. I don't have any personal issue with you, I only wanted to do a proper analysis on the situation.

PS: I thought that video had been removed but it looks like I was wrong - the video link wasn't working in the original article.

Quote

I beg your pardon – are we now seeing open debate/ freedom of speech being suppressed herein; is this a dictatorial demand?

There is no "censoring" on this site, you should have worked that out by now. However, I will not stand for posters being attacked because they choose to post under a name that is for the internet. This is not censorship, but one of the rules for posting on this forum. Stop criticising posters who are not posting under their real name.

The thing is Pat, I have found some of your previous articles very interesting. It is just a shame that you think this is personal for me - it really isn't. I have nothing against you, I simply want to do proper analysis on a video.