Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide

[Ivan Seeking]

First I want to say that some of the harsher comments made here are not intended towards anyone at this forum. This applies more to the trench warfare that takes place in lesser forums, on television, and in the popular media in general.

My first serious review of the UFO literature was for a college English essay. Before this, I found the subject to be bizarre, cultish, and mostly nonsense. I had some interest, but any actual story was too far out for my worldview. Only after reading about 10 books for my essay writing - The Hynek UFO Report being the most significant of these – did the subject carry any real weight in my own thoughts. From my own experience, it is easy to ignore or ridicule the subject, if you have ignored the subject, but an informed opinion is another matter altogether.

Now, any two people may interpret the same information is different ways; this is an unavoidable consequence of being human. And to say that the subject of UFOs opens the floodgates for conflict is an understatement at least, but to say the subject is all hogwash is to demonstrate ignorance. On the other hand, if this comes as an informed opinion, there is only one explanation for this behavior that makes sense: Fear. This would explain quite a few paradoxical aspects of our beloved debunkers. Here are a few of these paradoxes.

If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it. This is really strange since for one, the subject never can be disproved. This would violate basic logic. We can never prove that some elusive visitor is not here. Any good skeptic would know this so this begs the question: Why do they try so hard? Some might say they dedicate their time to help free the world of its nonsense notions? Nonsense! If they have half a clue about human nature they know this is not possible. Also, given that any good skeptic must know this, one must wonder why they don’t have something better to do? Of all the things that one might do with their time, why spend so much effort trying to show everyone else how silly they are? Even if this results from plain old meanness, or unfulfilled potential, failed dreams, boredom, or even if dad or mom didn’t love them enough, even if some reason like this exists, why attack the UFO crowd?

I have considered this question a bit, and it seems to me that the answer is fear. This is why the attacks are so misguided and personal. Note that the debunkers often try to debunk the messenger and not the message. This is one reason that I tend to stick with the study of government files as my focal point; this is the only source of UFO records that have some built in validation. But when faced even with intelligence reports that went to all of the highest levels of government including the White House, I have had debunkers ignore these official records as if they were from the National Enquirer. This leaves only one possible conclusion: the debunkers are rarely objective. This implies motive, or at least insincerity. What kind of motive? The preservation of their world view seems the only consistent explanation. What else could it be? What else would be so important that a person would donate so much time to a hopeless pursuit to disprove what they believe is nonsense, and which can never be disproved? Clearly our skeptics are quite uniquely bothered by this particular phenomenon. The reason is that deep down they realize just how important the subject might be.

Of course, as for our TV skeptics, it’s about the money.

Of course, we do still have to account for the insincere attackers: These are mostly people with personality disorders. They know that since UFOs are so elusive and controversial, the UFO buffs are easy targets. This allows them to be mean and lazy, which is usually all they really want.

To those who attack but have not studied the subject, I can understand your misguided malice. I once felt the same way about much this stuff.

[Zero]

WHat about the obvious points you miss? Here's a few I picked up on while reading your rant(well-reasoned rant, but a rant nevertheless):

1) UFOers mostly don't have any evidence, so of course skeptics will attack their credibility. It isn't a personal attack, so much as it is that an eyewitness has no evidence, and expects you to trust their integrity; if you later discover that the person has lied about other things, thier integrity is shot.

2) I don't know of any skeptic who is trying to disprove the existance of UFOs. I do know alot of skeptics who actually care about the truth, which the more credulous sometimes actively disregard.

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think skeptics have selected ET believers out to concentrate on. Believers in all unproven claims get equal attention as far as I can see.

Producing an argument against skeptics per se doesn't further your stance at all. All I can hear you saying when you concentrate on the personality defects of skeptics you don't like is that you wish the people who disagreed with you would go away.

I would rather you lead us through the train of evidence (documents) in a given case that is particularly convincing to you, and explain your reasoning as you go along.

-zoob

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
WHat about the obvious points you miss? Here's a few I picked up on while reading your rant(well-reasoned rant, but a rant nevertheless):

1) UFOers mostly don't have any evidence, so of course skeptics will attack their credibility. It isn't a personal attack, so much as it is that an eyewitness has no evidence, and expects you to trust their integrity; if you later discover that the person has lied about other things, thier integrity is shot.

2) I don't know of any skeptic who is trying to disprove the existance of UFOs. I do know alot of skeptics who actually care about the truth, which the more credulous sometimes actively disregard.

Zero, you obviously need to learn much more about the subject before forming an opinion.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I don't think skeptics have selected ET believers out to concentrate on. Believers in all unproven claims get equal attention as far as I can see.

check the book shelves. Look at the number of UFO debates at various forums. There are probably as many UFO threads as all other fringe subjects combined - less religion.

Producing an argument against skeptics per se doesn't further your stance at all. All I can hear you saying when you concentrate on the personality defects of skeptics you don't like is that you wish the people who disagreed with you would go away.

There are many who insist on personal attacks in place of considered debate or discussion. These are the people I reference. Also, I am furthering no position. I am simply making an observation. The degree of effort put forth by those who consider this subject nonesense makes no sense. Just as in any business meeting, the hostility is the dead giveaway.

I would rather you lead us through the train of evidence (documents) in a given case that is particularly convincing to you, and explain your reasoning as you go along.

The napster is posted. There is only so much value in debate. Any attempt to discuss information here, or at most any forum only tends to degenerate into mudslinging or endless refusals to consider the evidence in any reasonable way. In fact, the one clear lesson for me in this stuff is that people's minds can rarely be changed. If a person is interested, the only thing to do is to study and see for yourself. This post is really intended more for those who already have an interest. Frankly, we take a lot of crap for our honesty. I think it's time to recognize that the debunkers are really only acting to protect their own interests and beliefs. This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Zero, you obviously need to learn much more about the subject before forming an opinion. Nah, I think I know enough, thanks. [:D]

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
check the book shelves. Look at the number of UFO debates at various forums. There are probably as many UFO threads as all other fringe subjects combined - less religion.
Going by television I've seen more shows debunking Nessie than any others. I've seen two good shows debunking Roswell. Most bigfoot shows are balanced pro and con with a little more pro. I've seen three good shows debunking Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.
There are many who insist on personal attacks in place of considered debate or discussion. These are the people I reference.
This is their folly. I suggest you arm yourself with some good comebacks to the ad hominem argument, an argument which is not acceptable in debates. Perhaps supermentor Tom could help from his study of logic.
Also, I am furthering no position.
I was refering to your position on UFOs as stated in past threads, which has been that the phenomenon doesn't get the attention from serious scientists that it deserves.
I am simply making an observation. The degree of effort put forth by those who consider this subject nonesense makes no sense. Just as in any business meeting, the hostility is the dead giveaway.
I agree with your reasoning about this sort of skeptic but I don't care about this sort of skeptic.
The napster is posted. There is only so much value in debate.
There is alot of value in good open minded debate. When people start behaving unfairly you can call them on it, as in that one crop circle thread.
Any attempt to discuss information here, or at most any forum only tends to degenerate into mudslinging or endless refusals to consider the evidence in any reasonable way.
This has happened, but it doesn't always happen.
In fact, the one clear lesson for me in this stuff is that people's minds can rarely be changed.
With proper evidence you can change almost anyone's mind. If you can flip someone over into believing in Flying Discs from outer space without proper evidence all you've done is located a gullible person, so what's the point? If, on the other hand, you can't present the people here who hang around the "hard" science forums with enough evidence to get them to consider UFOs with more thought, then I think you should question, not your interest, but the large emotional investment you have in the subject.
If a person is interested, the only thing to do is to study and see for yourself.
The reason I suggested you take us through a case yourself is that I'm sure I won't read any info and interpret it the same way you do. As with the Hoover note.
This post is really intended more for those who already have an interest. Frankly, we take a lot of crap for our honesty. I think it's time to recognize that the debunkers are really only acting to protect their own interests and beliefs.
Debukers get cr*pped on all the time. Usually by people who are shouting.
Believers are also just protecting their own interests and ego and world outlook.
This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.
I wasn't aware debunkers were in the habit of equating ET to UFOs. I recall that you seemed to equate them, and that I was the one who pointed out that just because there are strange things flying around doesn't mean they are from another planet.

[Zero]

Well...there is a difference between accepting the existance of stuff in the sky, and the nonsense that many UFOers promote. If you see something unexplainable in the sky, cool...if you declare that it is proof of anything, prepare for the skeptics to jump you, and for good reason.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Zero
Well...there is a difference between accepting the existance of stuff in the sky, and the nonsense that many UFOers promote. If you see something unexplainable in the sky, cool...if you declare that it is proof of anything, prepare for the skeptics to jump you, and for good reason.
I agree. I'm convinced by the many reports of strange things flying around that unusual things are flying around. Anyone who is sure that they're from another planet has jumped to a conclusion.

[Ivan Seeking]

I am short on time right now, so until I get caught up on my programming I will say this, I find it difficult to ignore the ETH but I don't accept it. However, and on this point I am rather inflexible, something very strange and incredibly energetic is moving about the skies from time to time. It seems that neither I nor anyone else can explain it. Honest investigation of this subject provokes endless attacks and challenges by people who are not willing to learn about the subject for themselves. For those of us with an interest, this grows most tiresome - the constant antagonism. This stuff just can’t be summed up in an argument or two; it has taken me many years to acquire the conviction that I have. It is just not possible to convey everything that I have seen that has convinced me that UFOs are something real. This would require the recall of everything I have watched, heard or read about the subject for the last eighteen years. But in effect, in order to satisfy the debunker, this is what's required.

The stalemate is obvious. I can't prove anything beyond the evidence immediately available, and the debunker can never prove a negative. My motivation is my conviction that this is worth figuring out; for one because of the potential truth IF the ET "nuts" are right. If not, then it still qualifies as an interesting natural phenomenon...or something. But lately I keep asking myself, why do some many debunkers act so hostile; and why do they try so hard?

I try to present good evidence, but as time goes on, everything on the internet is more ad more suspect. This means that unless a person is willing to make the effort to learn about this themselves, I might as well talk until I turn blue. It will make no difference. Again though, as far as personal attacks and internet forums go, the really hostile behavior results from a lack of or absence of moderation in the forum. This really does not apply here at PF. We have a few members that have gotten quite personal at times, but most people here are really pretty docile. Take a look at the UFO discussions in an un-moderated forum some time.


One last note: If ET is here I would sure like to know it. I can see why so many people think this really is true, but that’s as far as I go.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I wasn't aware debunkers were in the habit of equating ET to UFOs. I recall that you seemed to equate them, and that I was the one who pointed out that just because there are strange things flying around doesn't mean they are from another planet.

This is the typical escape route when face with evidence they can't explain.

Zooby, I just can't do much here unless you can open pdf files.

[(Q)]

The stalemate is obvious. I can't prove anything beyond the evidence immediately available

Here’s where your logic fails miserably – there is no stalemate. The so-called evidence in which believers tend to find compelling is little more than testimonial hyperbole, which is far from the evidence required to even form a hypothesis.

the debunker can never prove a negative.

Debunkers are not interested in proving negatives. Debunkers have already successfully proven that believers have nothing to base their assertions aside from their own over-active imaginations. Of course, the believer ignores their own lack of validity and credibility.

why do some many debunkers act so hostile; and why do they try so hard?

Most likely, they are sick and tired of believers demanding funding for their fallacious projects - trying to find ET. As well, believers tend to mislead and deceive others with their ridiculous claims, thus having a negative effect on the perception of the scientific community. In short, believers do more damage to science than any good that might come about from their claims.

The hostility is well grounded.

If ET is here I would sure like to know it. I can see why so many people think this really is true

Quite frankly, I am dumb-founded by the amount of people willing to believe anything they are told. Most have little or no formal education and can’t even begin to fathom the problems associated with interstellar travel, yet are perfectly willing to accept the possibility that ET walks the Earth. The amount of UFOlogy crap on the internet only serves to feed their delusions.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so sadly tragic.

[FZ+]

Note that the debunkers often try to debunk the messenger and not the message
I dunno, but you seem to be mounting a bit of an ad-hominem attack, right now... [;)]

Ok, now with greater seriousness...

It is indeed true that one of the occupational harzards of skeptics are the so-called seige mentality, which is often connected with a sort of slippery slope logic. I've probably been guilty of it, myself. The fear is that (a) admitting insecurity about a case can lead to the loss of confidence of the general populace in established science etc as a whole, and (b) allowing claims to lie would only contrast with the claims that have been vigourously attack, giving apparent credence.

But I think that extending this sort of thinking to the borders of irrational paranoia only applies to a limited number of cases.
Most probably act out of a sense of duty, or as a kind of public service. If you see someone you know is a con man making a deal, would you prevent it?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
But I think that extending this sort of thinking to the borders of irrational paranoia only applies to a limited number of cases.
Most probably act out of a sense of duty, or as a kind of public service. If you see someone you know is a con man making a deal, would you prevent it?

Really I haven't visited any un-moderated forums lately. I know that about 5 years ago place like Deja used to get absolutely out of control. Of the forums that I still visit, sciforums still allows this kind of garbage.

As for a public service, if the skeptics typically knew anything about the subject they were attacking I might agree. Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
*snip*Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about. Really? I don't believe it...I mean, not counting me, of course![:D] I have found over the last few years that many skeptics who spend time debunking a certain area are also experts in that area. For instance, James Randi is pretty accomplished in cold reading and magician's tricks, and Joe Nickell, who writes well and often in the skeptical journals, is really knowledgable as regards the techniques and history of paranormal 'experience'. I can't imagine that somehow the UFO skeptics are exempt from that sort of expertise...myself excluded, of course.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? I don't believe it...I mean, not counting me, of course![:D] I have found over the last few years that many skeptics who spend time debunking a certain area are also experts in that area. For instance, James Randi is pretty accomplished in cold reading and magician's tricks, and Joe Nickell, who writes well and often in the skeptical journals, is really knowledgable as regards the techniques and history of paranormal 'experience'. I can't imagine that somehow the UFO skeptics are exempt from that sort of expertise...myself excluded, of course.

There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth. something similar could easily be said about the UFO crowd. When the evidence is hearsay, comes from repeat liars, or is simply eyewitness accounts of strage lights in the sky, there really isn't much to work with, is there?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
something similar could easily be said about the UFO crowd. When the evidence is hearsay, comes from repeat liars, or is simply eyewitness accounts of strage lights in the sky, there really isn't much to work with, is there?


This is true. It takes a lot of work to filter out the credible cases. This is why the skeptics are so transparent.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This stuff just can’t be summed up in an argument or two; it has taken me many years to acquire the conviction that I have. It is just not possible to convey everything that I have seen that has convinced me that UFOs are something real. This would require the recall of everything I have watched, heard or read about the subject for the last eighteen years. But in effect, in order to satisfy the debunker, this is what's required.
Some things require a book length explanation.

It isn't fruitful for you to say that the information is out there and then become frustrated when people don't look into it. Since you are the one raising the subject for discussion so often I feel it is encumbent on you to be able to put the information you want people to see right in front of their eyes.

If you can't quite remember what lead you to this conclusion or that point of view after 18 years, where the info is, what your train of thought was, it isn't sporting of you to get frustrated with anyone else for not being persuaded by you. If these things aren't consciously organized in your mind in a presentable form, there's a good chance people won't even really be able to understand what point it is you're making.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It isn't fruitful for you to say that the information is out there and then become frustrated when people don't look into it. Since you are the one raising the subject for discussion so often I feel it is encumbent on you to be able to put the information you want people to see right in front of their eyes.
This sounds like clear thinking to me. Having never had an encounter convincing me such things are even worth the time to look into, or known anyone in person who had, I feel that an extraordinary claim needs to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. I can only acknowledge that claims are made by certain people, some of whom are fakes and others who are no doubt sincere. From a practical position I have to place UFO’s in a similar category to that in which I place claims of the knowledge of god(s), of which I know precisely as little. It is, for the present, something outside my condition and hence nothing I can make a 100% claim either for or against. All that remains is for me to live my life until such time as I either develop a strong interest, or at least have more to work with.

[zoobyshoe]

Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is true. It takes a lot of work to filter out the credible cases. This is why the skeptics are so transparent. But, even the 'credible' cases don't have a whole lot of evidence to back them up, do they?

[(Q)]

Ivan,

Why did you come to Sciforums and make false accusations against me regarding my post above? Is that appropriate action a Mentor would take? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps Greg should rethink his choice for Mentor of this forum. IMO, you have embarrased him.

[(Q)]

Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about.

That may be true for some but is not true as a generalized statement.

By the same token, there are quite a few believers who know nothing of the science behind interstellar travel, yet are willing to commit a great deal of time trying to convince others that ET visits Earth and in some cases, walks the Earth.

There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth.

I know you consider me a bad skeptic as you’ve gone to the trouble to make false accusations against me. However, I’ve asked you to discuss the real issues behind interstellar travel, yet you refuse to do so. Frankly, I don’t understand why you won’t discuss these issues considering you claim to have a degree in physics.

Is your physics claim false, as well?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by (Q)
Ivan,

Why did you come to Sciforums and make false accusations against me regarding my post above? Is that appropriate action a Mentor would take? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps Greg should rethink his choice for Mentor of this forum. IMO, you have embarrased him.
(Q),
Are you the person who also posts here as "Quantum Carl"?

[(Q)]

Zooby

No.

[radagast]

Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.

As examples:

On a common UFO 'evidence' type show that was on about five years ago, one of the presented bits of evidence was an amateur video, filmed in Salt Lake City (if memory serves) which showed an apparent, blurred, UFO over the Rockies. This object was moving an a vertically oriented ellipse. It would have had to have been of non-terrestrial origins, if,as stated, it was flying above the Rockies, just from the inferred accellerations and alterations in flight patterns. Something was in it's motion was extremely familiar. I realized, within seconds, that what I was seeing mimiced the motion of a kite, exactly. What had been assumed to be over the Rockies, was undoubtedly only a half mile away, or less. And no one had thought to consider this.

I had a friend, in the Navy, who was the back-seater in an F14. One evening, after-dark, they were flying into Norfolk, Va. The next morning the paper reported hundreds of sitings of UFOs at the exact places and times that corrosponded to their flight paths. The Navy didn't disabuse this. It is their policy to never reveal information about operation activities. To this day he likes to tell people about his flight in a 'UFO'.

About ten years ago, a skeptics organization decided to run a little experiment on how self-policing the UFO community was. They went to a site (I believe in Scotland) near a mountain, where sitings of UFO's were common. After dark, they had a person shine a light (purple) against the far mountain, and a 'plant' among the group of gathered UFO enthusists, pointed the UFO out to the crowd. All in the crowd accepted that it was a UFO. In a few days, they (skeptics group) came out with set of photos, which were nothing like the purple light, claiming that this was a picture of the UFO. Then they sat back and watched. For two years. There was never any skepticism or questioning from the UFO community that these sitings and/or photos could be anything but real. Even after the hoax/experiment was revealed, the photos are still circulated as 'evidence' of visitors of extraterrestrial origin.

Do I fear UFO's? Yep, about as much as I believe I'll be strangled, in my sleep, by the Easter Bunny.

[russ_watters]

Just saw this thread, but haven't read it yet. For now, I'll just state my default position that extrordinary claims require equally extrordinary evidence. And an ETUFO is a REALLY extrorinary claim.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just saw this thread, but haven't read it yet. For now, I'll just state my default position that extrordinary claims require equally extrordinary evidence. And an ETUFO is a REALLY extrorinary claim.

I make no ET claims. It is not reasonable to point only to the crackpots as a solution to the phenomenon. I suggest that everyone stop making claims and try to figure this this out. If nothing else, the social significance demands it. There is more to this subject than simple crackpot claims; that's why it won't go away like so many other fad notions have over the last 60 years.

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that Q is one of the people to whom I refer as a hostile attacker. For this reason, due to Qs continous personal attacks and insults, I no longer respond to Q.

Q, I won't tolerate the kind of garbage you hand out at Sciforums. Consider yourself on notice.

[(Q)]

I no longer respond to Q.

Yes, I’ve noticed – instead you now slink over to other forums and make false accusations against me.

Q, I won't tolerate the kind of garbage you hand out at Sciforums.

Call it what you will – the truth of the matter is corroborative - as is the case there as it is here, you are unable to formulate an argument in your favor and consider those responses that do not agree with your own views as hostile.

Consider yourself on notice.

Have I violated the terms of service? Please point out exactly why I am ‘on notice.’

Or are you abusing your power as a Mentor?

If you are so inclined to run me off the boards, so to speak, why don’t you just ask me to leave instead?

[FZ+]

Ok children... play nicely.

We don't want another ad hominemathon.

[(Q)]

Ivan sez:

Qs continous personal attacks and insults

Actually, it’s interesting you should say that – perhaps we could invite others to see who exactly began with the personal attacks and insults, and only within a few days of joining Sciforums:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28520

… which led to this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=438478#post438478

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I make no ET claims. What claims do you make then?I suggest that everyone stop making claims and try to figure this this out. The problem is that that implies a level playing field where none exists. There is a burden of proof on those who make extrordinary claims to provide the extrordinary evidence to back them up.

Backing up...If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it. Where? I've never seen any widespread effort toward trying to disprove "it." (Uh - disprove WHAT exactly, BTW?). Most scientists simply ignore the issue because it lacks any scientific validity - there simply isn't anything for them to disprove.

If you mean places like this forum - you start most of the threads on the subject. This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct. I equate ET with UFOs because that is the ONLY claim I have ever seen from the UFO camp. And your post halfway down the first page certainly implies that you believe there is an ET origin to UFOs. You didn't say it explicitly though, so if you could, would you clarify that please? Do you believe some UFOs are of ET origin?

Also, Just posting a link and asking for opinions as you did in another thread, then knocking down other people's evaluations without making your own claim is not acceptable science. It doesn't help you prove anything (and I don't care how many times you say you have no point - if you post a link, you are implying something about that link). It simply isn't how science works. Heck, the best response to such a non-claim is simply "I don't know." Then there is nothing to argue, nothing proven or disproven.

And a denial isn't a luxury here - its an assumption. Again, burden of proof is on the one making the extrordinary claim. Thats how science works.

[Ivan Seeking]

Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

[Zero]

This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up. [b(]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument. The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique. This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up. Agreed.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

My position is popular with virtually no one; which tells me that I'm probably close.[:D] Really I do have a few kindred spirits. Recently I have corresponded quite a bit with a trial lawyer who feels much the same as I do. Also, Allen J. Hynek - the father of modern Ufology, and before that the original govenment sponsored UFO debunker - died in a state of uncertainty about the whole subject. He had no doubt that they exist, but what UFOs are remained a mystery to Hynek after nearly 50 years of research. So in fact some percentage of the most serious researchers, and certainly the grand daddy of them all do [did] feel uncertain about the proper explanation. Unfortunately, these people get little attention.

Most debunkers don't realize this.

EDIT: Also, my position is clear. I am convinced that something real, rare, unknown, and highly energetic does fly around the skies; interfere with aircraft, burn people, leave physical evidence upon touchdown [land], that sometimes show up on RADAR, and that are often interpreted as being alien spacecraft. They also appear to cause electrical systems to fail in unusual ways, and they act in a manner that is often interpreted as being controlled by some intelligence.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood. Well said.

How about it Ivan?

And, just to be boringly repetitious, "... explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study"

Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful. Those of us who wish to view the source can always do so, and will also surely write back if they find your summary has significant shortcomings.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful.
This part would still be a problem for me because, as was demonstrated in the case of the Hoover note, being able to see the actual note turned out to be the key to unlocking its lack of signifigance.

It was alot of trouble to figure out a way to put this document in a place I could get to it, as it turned out, which is why I suggested Ivan select one really convincing case and do some planning and work to put the info where it's easy to get to.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
[B]Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.

Like any subject, one must be smart about their sources. Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens. It takes quite a bit of work to sort through the information and get a reasonable picture of what goes on. I hear almost no references to any of the information that interests me; only the obvious boloney that most serious investigators also dismiss. Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

Also, we don't assume that the people standing in line for two weeks to see Star Wars are representive of movie-goers; nor should we look to a bunch of people howling at the moon as representing the UFO crowd. There was recently a big UFO convention in Vegas. As I'm told, of the 500 people [or so] that attended, one idiot shows up with antennas on his head. Guess where all the news cameras were pointing?

People like this really have nothing to do with the subject any more than skin heads represent the republican party, or that tree hugging dope smokers represent the democrats.

[Ivan Seeking]

I have refrained from posting a summary of the event since there are so many critical details. I guess in all fairness to Zooby I should. I will convey the details of the report as it is written.

What we have is an intelligence report to the DIA [ Defense Intelligence Agency] from a DAO [Defense Agency Officer], and distributed to the CIA, NSA, White house, CMC, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and a number of other agencies. The report describes events over Tehran, Iran, on Sept 19th, 1976. The credibility of the report is listed as high, with high ranking witnesses, RADAR confirmation, effects on the crews night vision [due to the brilliance of the object], and onboard electronics were affected.

The command center at [Iranian] Shamrokhi AFB – then an ally of the US hence our presence in the area – received a number of calls from citizens reporting unusual lights and objects over the city. From the command center, the officer in charge could see a bright light near the area reported. After it was confirmed that no helicopters were in the air, command scrambled an F-4 to investigate at about 12:30 AM. The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away. On approach and when at 25 NM [Nautical Miles] from the UFO, the plane lost all communication and instrumentation. When the plane turned away, [specifically the statement is made] apparently when the F-4 was no longer a threat, the electronics returned to normal. The first plane returned to base. Another F-4 was dispatched for intercept at 12:40 AM. As the “backseater” with RADAR then approached the object and obtained a lock at 27NM, the UFO began to move away so as to pace the F-4 and maintain a constant distance of 25 NM. . This motion was confirmed on RADAR.

The object yielded the same RADAR return as a 707 tanker. The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once. As the chase ensues to the south of Tehran, another bright object about 1/3 the size of the original came out of the object heading directly towards the F-4. The pilot attempted to fire and AIM missile, but at that exact moment his weapons and communications systems failed. The plane took evasive actions to avoid collision with the smaller orb which then followed the F-4 in the evasive dive at about 3-4 NM, and then cut across the inside chord of the flight path for a “perfect rejoin” with the main object.

Next, the crew regains their electronics and then observes another bright object come out of the other side of the original and head straight down at high speed. An explosion was expected, but the object slowed to a gentle landing and then cast a bright light over a 2-3 km area. After circling the landing zone a couple of time, the planes attempted to return to base. They lost communications every time the plane heading approached 150 degrees [presumably the direction of the UFO wrt their heading to base]. Another civil airliner on approach lost communications at this time as well. On final approach, the F-4 crew observed a cylindrical object in flight – about the size of a T-bird – at about 10 miles, and with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. This was not detected on RADAR, but the object was visually confirmed by the tower.

The next day the landing area was inspected by helicopter. A very noticeable beeper sound was heard. [presumably on their radio, this is not indicated] They landed and interviewed some people living near the landing area. The locals reported a very loud noise and a bright light like lightning the night before. The area was being checked for radiation. This information was obtained through a sub-source and the pilot of the second F4

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

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a place to start: can someone figure out in lumens how bright it would have to have been to be visible 70 miles away?

[(Q)]

Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens.

This is of course farthest from the truth. Most believers know little of the facts behind interstellar travel aside from their TV nighttime soap operas.

Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

From a believer’s point of view, any argument that begins to bring science to the forefront is tiresome. It’s not possible to retain a belief system with facts.

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure how to do that one Zooby...at least not off the top of my head. Maybe someone will know a shortcut.

Also, I should note that the report also indicates that this was confirmed by other sources.

In my experience we find most of the major components of the typical [credible] UFO here.

Obviously we find high strangeness.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
The object could split and then rejoin again
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

These types of observations are common in the best cases. One thing that we don't see here is any evidence of fantastic flight capabilities. Accelerations in excess of 20Gs, and speeds in excess of 4000 mph are also seen in some cases that resemble this one.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Listing its apparent characteristics is a good idea.
Obviously we find high strangeness.
"High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. Uninformative. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
Sounds right.
The object could split and then rejoin again
Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner
Yes.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

Seemingly inexplicable behavior and/or characteristics.


Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

Point taken.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics. [/B]

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Seemingly inexplicable behavior.
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.
The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...
We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

[Ivan Seeking]

I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII. Now, the pilot of the F-4 describes the phenomenon as a brighly lit object. Aside from the retangular lights, he describes no structure.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.

Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.

We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII.
Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.


(Aside to judge) Your honor, I would ask that the defences' remarks concerning other cases not under consideration here be stricken from the record. He is trying to prejudice the jury.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.
Ok, in that case I don't think it's useful to describe this crafts characteristics. Describing what was reported is sufficient. The "high strangeness" is gratuitous editorializing.
You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.

I understand your objection...more later.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Originally posted by radagast
I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently refering to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?

I don't see this as being of value. We could probably see a flashlight at 70 miles under the right conditions. One significant measure of the energy is the claimed inteference with weapons systems at 3-4 NM minimum, and communications at up to 25 NM. This requires a lot of energy. I have no idea how to calculate the amount...especially when it involves weapons systems. Since this happened in a metal box - a faraday cage - this really takes a lot of energy. I don't know what else we can say about this aspect of the event.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently refering to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.

The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.

Edit: This happens because we can't explain what people claim they saw, or what wouild seem to be the facts.

Edit: It doesn't matter what they think they saw; only what they saw.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?

Sorry, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I will have to look at my post again. What I intended is restated in my last post. Somehow you did get the wrong idea.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...

[:D] [:D] [:D] Really and truly, that's not what I was saying. Scouts honor. Honest injun. [It's OK, I'm part injun]

[zoobyshoe]

Well, heres my take on it at this point.

I went back and reread the description of the multicolored flashing rectangular formation of lights, and observe later where they say the size of it was impossible to estimate because of the brilliance: you couldn't make out edges or dimensions.

What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII that were installed around the Panama Canal by the US military to prevent German bombers from being able to see to aim their bombs at the canal locks. These devices were actually invented by a magician who was handy with mirrors. The show on the History channel that talked about this said something to the effect that the military has not to this day released the exact design of these devices. (The show was about all the various camoflage and deception techniques we used in WWII: divisions of rubber inflatable tanks, dummies with parachutes dropped to mislead about where we were actually invading)

So not being able to make out the dimensions of this craft because of the brilliance of the light it was throwing off makes me wonder if that was the point of throwing off this light to begin with: to obscure details that might make the workings of the other effects more clear. Were these lights obscuring conventional helicopter type rotors? Were they obscuring the means by which the secondary craft (smaller helicopters) were attached to the first?

So, let's say this is some military experimental craft, either US or Soviet. Either possibility would generate the same routing of info in high US government circles.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII.

Yes, and it always possible that we will yet see a military technology to explain this event. However as time goes on this becomes less and less likely. Also, the fact is, and I think most people would agree, as far as we know in 1976 neither we nor anyone else had a technology that could account for this report. Also, if this technology existed, this report should not be available. This would be highly classified.

Note that no craft was ever seen [except for the cylinder but that's another issue].
No propulsion system is observed.
The first object paced an F-4 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F-4 undergoing evasive maneuvers.

Edit: I had said F-14s here, they were F4's.

I don't see a mechanical solution at this point. Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that no craft was ever seen No propulsion system is observed.
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.
The first object paced an F14 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F14 undergoing evasive maneuvers.
I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.
Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.
I don't follow your logic here at all. Please explain, in tiny little steps.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Here's a place to start... Actually, where I would start is far more basic. I don't accept the validity of the report itself. Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.

HERE (http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo.html) is a link to the NSA's site on this particular freedom of information act request. I've looked at a few links. In THIS (http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo6.pdf) article, not written by the NSA, but in their database, it says that ...all these agencies agreed that the "top brass" mentioned in the distribution list were routinely informed of every item of interest which comes out of the sensitive Middle East area.

It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.

I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"
It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.
Speaking for myself, the fact the military termed it a UFO simply means they couldn't identify it. Nothing more.
I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.
Without knowing what each person who saw the report said in response not much more can be said about the fact it was circulated than that there was, at least, some wonder in high circles if it had any signifigance

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.

I realize this...

I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.

Well, really you keep eluding to [for simplicity] the Secret Super-technology hypothesis [SSH ]. In order to account for this report by means of technology [the human kind], it seems that we must assume the existence of a super technology that has existed at least [in this instance] since 1976. To this day there is no technology known that could account for the report. The speed exhibited, the jamming of onboard weapons systems, and especially the separation and rejoining, these elements of the story seem to rule out any technology of the day; then or now. At that time, the only things known [in Jane’s Book of Planes] that could pace or evade an F4 in full pursuit was another F4 or later model [I’m not sure what the latest generation was in 1976], a Russian Mig, a few spy planes, and missiles.

Next, there are a few things about the source of these documents [more docs to come] worth knowing. These are directly from government achieves. At some time this was filed away with perhaps millions of other classified documents. Presumably in 1982 - the time of the declassification of this document - someone submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for either this document specifically, or some or all documents relating to this event. At that time a review of the doc was made for issues of national security. As I understand this, given that certain criteria are met, the government must release the doc upon request, however it can black out any or all of the information as required to protect national security interests. Here is an example of a doc that has been significantly blacked out.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo13.pdf

What we see is a 2 page document without any context [this is from the NSA files, that’s all we know]. At least half of the document is blacked out. We see only sporadic text – going line by line here - The header, subject, date, and other multiple lines of text are blacked out. 20 lines of black ink in total…so far. In what follows, each line represents a full line of text on the document.

blacked out [BO] unidentified flying objects.
(UFO) on BO
BO aware of
various unidentified objects in BO
BO
BO
Unidentified silent light moving BO
BO
BO the light was a satellite not an aircraft BO
Unidentified light BO
The light was identified as at least one aircraft
BO
[This continues until the next page which has]
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO it was a cargo jet
ADMIN
BO
BO
BO

So we see what happens when we have a matter of national security involved. We can demand the document, but Uncle Sam can use all of the black ink he wants. It is very common find documents with up to 75% of the text blacked out.

In the Iran case we find intricate details of a classic UFO encounter. If the government was really trying to hide information about UFOs, or if this was considered to be a technology, we would not be reading the report. There is one exception to this statement I will mention in a minute. Another example of how a government reacts to sensitive information is found in events in the X-Soviet. Russian military tests invoked a rash of UFOs sightings. Some serious people got interested and began cataloguing and distributing the information; including photographs. When the Soviet government realized that sensitive details of military tests were being broadcasts around the world as UFO incidents, they realized that this information could be useful to the enemy. So guess what, a whole bunch of UFO information was classified. The reason for the classification is obvious. The interpretation of this action by Ufologist was understandably misguided; they saw this as part of a UFO conspiracy action.

Whatever is blacked out in this example documents is or was considered sensitive information. Clearly the Iran UFO is not considered a sensitive subject. This agrees with the government’s public position that whatever they are, and they don’t deny that UFOs exist; UFOs are not considered a matter of national security interest.

From a military fact sheet:
There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.

Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force. Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defense budgets, it is unlikely the Air Force would become involved in such a costly project in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in "Encyclopedia of Associations," published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.

http://www.af.mil/search/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=188&page=1

This next document also makes clear that officially, UFOs are not a matter of national security.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/usaf_f1.pdf

Going all the way back to WWII, classified government documents have accumulated to the point of daunting proportions. I am pretty sure that the last count revealed about one billion documents that must be reviewed for sensitive information before release. All of this classification leads many to believe that the government is hiding information. The real problem might simply be a matter of scale.

This all lends strongly I think to my position that the events in Iran do not represent a technology.

This does ignore the possibility that the government conspires to perpetuate the UFO myth in order to mask secret super-technology. Perhaps this document was planted or allowed to be released for this purpose. But for now, I would like to avoid all conspiracy theories. We can take those on later; one at a time.

As for Iran, consider the following:
Again, no craft is seen.

Proximity to the phenomenon, within 25 NM it seems, can interfere with avionics systems, and at some lesser range, weapons systems. This and the intense light imply highly energetic EM emissions. This is consistent with other phenomenon in nature- lighting for one.

When in pursuit, and when the second object came out of the first “right at the F4”, consider that the F4 is in the debris trail [so to speak] of the main object. In other words, did the second object come right at the F4, or was the F4 heading straight for the second object? When the jet took evasive maneuvers and went into a dive, was the second object chasing the jet or simply falling? Did the two objects really rejoin, or did one simply go poof or disappear somehow? Did the weapons fail exactly when he went to fire, or about when he went to fire? Could the second object coming out of the first represent an energetic event that caused the weapons failure? Zooby, I think you’ll like this one: Could the high EM affect the pilot mentally; perhaps in judgment or perspective? Also, and later this will become significant to my position, if natural, could a phenomenon like this cause hallucinations that account for many accompanying ET experiences? I will try to make this argument as we go. My suggestion that this is natural is not comfortable, but as you may later agree, it’s the only escape from ET that I can see.

EDIT: Could ball lighting or something similar be much more interesting that we ever realized?

Edit: I was working late and remembered one more thought on this: The object was said to start retreating from the F4 just after being hit by the plane's RADAR. Could this object have been reacting to the energy of the RADAR; literally being pushed along by the momentum of the RADAR photons? If we see the object on RADAR, then we are imparting a momentum to that object just by looking. Just some more speculation on my part...

[Ivan Seeking]

This is another case that we should discuss. I am posting this now because on friday this week, i.e. Dec 12th, the Sci Fi channel will be airing an investigation into this event at 9:00 PM. This is a very, very significant event.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

We can discuss this case more later. Be sure to watch this if you're interested; this should be very interesting.


Edit: Here are the rest of the links from the Napster:
Rendlesham Forest: 1980
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart1.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart2.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart3.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart4.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart5.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa030998.htm

http://www.rendlesham.com/

http://www.flyingsaucery.com/Rendlesham/

NEW BBC REPORT: "UFO lights were 'a prank'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm
**A full review of the several incidents that constitute this case seem to evade explanation by this report. Note that at least three security officers reported the direct observation of a craft: "A triangular shaped object was seen on the forest floor". More information will be posted as it becomes available.***

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?" Again, I'd like to hear a clarification of this by someone who would know (NSA or military). If the criteria was simply that (for example) every contact not specifically identified as benign gets reported in this way, then there is nothing special at all implied by the circulation of this one.

My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.

I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described.

[Ivan Seeking]

Should we go on to the next case?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Should we go on to the next case? Yes please.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described. No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.

Well, to support your position I guess you would need to produce more reports that were directed to the white house.

EDIT: I can say that I have read a lot of this stuff, and most UFO reports seem to remain internal to the department involved. I guess in either case my fall back position would be that it says right on the report that the sources are of high credibility. This comes as the highest rating offered for selection by the reporting officer.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking In order to account for this report by means of technology [the human kind], it seems that we must assume the existence of a super technology that has existed at least [in this instance] since 1976.
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976. What I'm suggesting is the unproven, yes, but not impossible combination, of all those separate technologies into a single craft. the only things known [in Jane’s Book of Planes] that could pace or evade an F4 in full pursuit was another F4 or later model [I’m not sure what the latest generation was in 1976], a Russian Mig, a few spy planes, and missiles.
First, let me correct the name of the aircraft I saw at Miramar: it was the Harrier Jump Jet, not the Aardvark. The Harrier is capable of 730 mph. The F4 may be faster, but there is, in fact, nothing in you summary to the effect that the F4 was ever going at its top speed.

The Harrier can hover for one and a half minutes. (This is very taxing and consumes a tremendous amout of fuel, but it can be done). This, in fact, is what I saw the one at Miramar do. They made a special point to demonstrate its hovering capabilities. The main problem with this scenario is that the first flight of a Harrier did not take place till 1978. In 76 it was only in development. What this means, though, is that a craft that could both hover and fly at jet speeds was, in fact, being worked on by the British in 1976 The hypothesized existence of some other, top secret, craft with this same capability isn't the stretch it seems at first.
This all lends strongly I think to my position that the events in Iran do not represent a technology.
This all being:
1.) They heavily redact things they don't want seen.

2.) UFOs are not classified as a matter of National Security.

3.) The Soviet example shows what a government can suppress if it wants.

Correct?

However, when you say these events "do not represent a technology", it seems all you can say is "not a US technology." Your case against the Gov. being hiding its own secrets holds water, but what about the Soviet, or some other government's secrets it isn't aware of? As I said to Russ, not knowing what evryones reactions to the report were leaves us very much in the dark about important aspects of the thing.
This does ignore the possibility that the government conspires to perpetuate the UFO myth in order to mask secret super-technology
This came up on a recent UFO show on TV. There was in fact a specific policy adopted by the CIA in one instance for sure to refrain from negating any UFO reports in order to obfuscate that famous spy plane (the one that later got downed over the Soviet Union...)
Again, no craft is seen.
Actually, I'm curious why you have put it in these words twice now. The lights were of course seen, and at night can you ever really see anything about a craft other than the lights? Why do you say "No craft was seen?"
Proximity to the phenomenon, within 25 NM it seems, can interfere with avionics systems, and at some lesser range, weapons systems.
Here I'm wondering exactly what kind of emp is needed to effect this. I was going to order a book once on how to build a big Tesla Coil but there was a little wrning that they should not be operated in the vicinity of airports because they can cause interference with the communications systems of passenger jets. I was living in downtown San Diego at the time in the flight path of alot of airport traffic, so I didn't bother to order the book. Likewise, the Tesla coil which is on display in the Science Museum in Balboa Park (also downtown) is only discharged one time, once every ten minutes, to prevent it from causing more interference than that.


I do not believe we are limited to choices between something natural and ET. This isn't a multiple choice test. What we have is a report we can either explain if we can find the right piece of info, or not be able to explain. It is fallacious to say if it isn't explainable it must be ET.


As for the very interesting maneuvers of the secondary crafts this is why I keep bringing up the blinding function of the spectacular light show:

"The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once."

For me, the test of whether or not we have to abandon any possible terrestrial cause is this: if we gave these descriptions to David Copperfield along with a large budget and access to a reasonable amount of military hardware, would he be able to put it all together in such a way as to fool the Iranian Air force?

You must remember that the man who developed the plane dazzling mirrors for the military in WWII was a magician, they do employ such people, and I'm sure the soviets would as well.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976.

I don't think this is true. If it actually happened, the separation and rejoining I think makes this impossible to explain with known technology. However, we must allow for variations on the story due to observer error and bias. Edit: Also, we can't forget the apparent failure of avionics and onboard weapons systems. I doubt that directed EM weapons of such strenth were or are possible to the extent indicated in this report.

However, when you say these events "do not represent a technology", it seems all you can say is "not a US technology." Your case against the Gov. being hiding its own secrets holds water, but what about the Soviet, or some other government's secrets it isn't aware of? As I said to Russ, not knowing what evryones reactions to the report were leaves us very much in the dark about important aspects of the thing.

If we or anyone else had technology like this it would be matter of national security. It is important to realize that this has been 27 years ago now. In this amount of time, most classified technology is not only known but declassified.

Actually, I'm curious why you have put it in these words twice now. The lights were of course seen, and at night can you ever really see anything about a craft other than the lights? Why do you say "No craft was seen?"

Well, it is easy to read this and to think that a craft must have been present due to the implied intelligence. The rectangular lights strengthen this impression, but in fact he never reported any structured vehicle.

Here I'm wondering exactly what kind of emp is needed to effect this.

Interference with radio is not so impressive - though somewhat so at 25NM. But the internal systems are protected by a big metal box - the plane. I can effectively shield electronics that are sitting right next to tesla coil by putting it in a metal box. Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects. It happens to airliners quite frequently. To effect systems some 25 miles distant is really, really impressive.

I do not believe we are limited to choices between something natural and ET. This isn't a multiple choice test.

More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.

[Ivan Seeking]

It will take me a little time to write summaries of some other arhieved military events, so why don't we look at Rendlesham now?
Remember the Rendlesham special is tonight on the Sci Fi channel. I want to see what if they bring anything new to the table. The links are posted above, and there are a couple of links at the bottom of the list that are not PDF files [see one below].

Here is a good link for a summary of events.
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa030998.htm

See also the bottom of this linked page for more information and links. The first link given earlier [a pdf file] is the original report from Lt. Col. Halt - the Deputy Base commander.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think this is true. If it actually happened, the separation and rejoining I think makes this impossible to explain with known technology.
The reason it is impossible for you to explain the appearance of one craft coming out of the other is because you don't know how it was done. I can't explain one David Copperfield trick. Nor can I explain any but the simplest of David Blaine's tricks.

Start off imagining two helicopters sitting on a jumbo jet. Add a spectacular system of red, orange, blue, and yellow strobe lights.

What does ET need with strobe lights?

If us or anyone else had technology like this, it would be matter of national security.
Only if we could trace it to, and pin it on someone else. If it can't be it's a "UFO" which is not a matter of National Security.
Well, it is easy to read this and to think that a craft must have been present due to the implied intelligence. The rectangular lights strengthen this impression, but in fact he never reported any structured vehicle.
"The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away." "The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance."
So, the fact he did not report a structured craft is really immaterial, of no signifigance whatever. Just imagine any building the size of a jumbo jet covered with strobe lights flashing in several colors so quickly all could be seen at once. The building would be invisible.
Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects.
It strikes me as highly unlikely, then, that the F4s systems were hit with an EMP. If the EMP from a direct hit by lightning can't knock out a metal planes electronics, the size of the EMP that could would have to have knocked out the electronics of that whole city. The alternative (i know nothing about jet controls or systems) could be that the electronics that were effected are, in fact, vulnerable due to being to some kind of sensors on the exterior of the plane, through which the EMP could travel to the electronics.
More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.

that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt. [:D]

In the Rendlesham case, one element of the story that strikes me is that first we hear about a typical glowing orb that does a few strange things, and then it burst. After this, we hear of a close encounter with what seems to be an alien craft. There is a lot to this story so it may take a bit to put things together. Also, in spite of my efforts here let their be no doubt, many people point to this event as strong evidence of ET and a cover up. The way I have tried to get out of this event and avoid ET, and then still accept the reports is to assume that this burst of light [EM energy] produced hallucinations that account for the rest of the story.

Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt. I call him: "Mini-me".


[QUOTE][B]Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?
Actually, I'm not aware of any link between false memories and strong EM stimulation. Has Persinger demonstrated this as well? (I've only read about the OBEs and visual hallucinations.)

False memories don't require any hallucinations. They arise from following a train of thought while in a deeply hypnotized state. All that needs to be implanted in the mind is the verbal outline of the story. Details are filled in (created for the first time, actually) during recall, according to the person's understanding of how and what makes sence. The original train of the story can be implanted by someone else, can come from the persons own imagination with no outer involvement, or be a misinterpretation of external events happening while the trance is in progress.

[Ivan Seeking]

I will do my best to keep this story straight.

First we have the physical evidence:

1). First, we have RADAR data showing an unknown object entering the area. For a short time we also have data that showed an uncorrelated target at the proper location.


2). Next, we have the radiation levels at one of the claimed "landing sites". This was the site inspected by Col Halt and his crew. Measurements made on the trees and on the soil at the spot where the UFO touched down measured as high as 0.1 mr/hr [milliroentgens per hour]. The background levels measured 0.015 mr/hr. [see p 8of 39 in the PDF #1 file]
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart1.pdf

Quick definitions (Roentgen)

• noun: German physicist who discovered x-rays and developed roentgenography (1845-1923)
• noun: a unit of radiation exposure; the dose of ionizing radiation that will produce 1 electrostatic unit of electricity in 1 cc of dry air

The highest levels were reportedly measured at the center of the landing site, next at the three impressions made in the soil, and then on the surrounding trees; being strongest on the side of the trees facing the UFO.

3). Also, physical impressions were found in the soil that agreed with the earlier observations at the landing site.

4). Finally, we have three rolls of fogged film from three separate cameras.

We also have multiple eyewitnesses acting in a professional capacity that corroborate the story. We have official reports that show that some event did take place. Also, we have civilian witnesses that further support the claims of the military eyewitnesses. Also, in light of the second landing site realized on the program tonight, the originator of the lighthouse explanation now offers no explanations.

Any comments or objections so far?

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, these are two quotes [found in the Napster] from one of Britain’s highest ranking military officials [retired].

" I have no doubt that something landed at this U.S. Air Force base [Bentwaters] and I have no doubt that it has got the people concerned in to a considerable state. The Ministry of Defense has doggedly stuck to it's normal line, that nothing of defense interest took place. Either large numbers of people , including the commanding general at Bentwaters,were hallucinating, and for an American Air Force nuclear base , this is extremely dangerous - or what they say did happen.
In either of these circumstances, there can be only one answer - that it was of extreme defense interest to the U.K."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background—a former Chief of the Defense Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee—why I think there is a cover-up [of] the facts about UFOs. I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space. It behooves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want."

Admiral Lord Hill-Norton;
Former chief of the British Defense Staff

Clearly serious people take this subject seriously.

[Nereid]

Next, we have the radiation levels at one of the claimed "landing sites". This was the site inspected by Col Halt and his crew. Measurements made on the trees and on the soil at the spot where the UFO touched down measured as high as 0.1 mr/hr [milliroentgens per hour]. The background levels measured 0.015 mr/hr. As I read this, a number of questions occurred to me:
- who took the radiation measurements?
- what instruments did they use?
- what controls did they take (e.g. radiation measurements in similar sites nearby that didn't have the depressions (etc), using the same equipment, ...)?
- what were the actual data?

Then I read the PDF file, and it seems the writer of the hand-written note (p10) had much the same questions, and also some possible answers.

Here's what's written on that page (some words may not be correct; the handwriting isn't all that easy for me to follow):
"[intro skipped] 0.01 would be the general level of background radiation, so the 0.1 reading is about 10 times what would be normal.

However, military radiation detectors are geared for high-level readings, so low-level readings may be difficult to record accurately, as the scale will be small at the bottom of the meter.* We don't have details of what instrument was used. It is just possible to have such an event. A university lab might well have some radioactive source with a very short half life, and could use it so as to give readings, which would not be recorded a few days later. The level of radiation of 0.1 is completely harmless. [signature]
*Especially if the needle was fluctuating"

The base commander's own words, on the radiation, are as follows:
"The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the centre of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05 - .07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions."

The other reference to radiation seems to indicate that the natural background radiation of the area was not known, nor checked. There was also: "I assume that this is per hour"

If we wanted to look into this seriously, there are a number of 'first steps' that I'd suggest (not comprehensive):
- gather data on the original data gatherers and gathering
- re-visit the site to find the current radiation levels
- take samples from the area for detailed analysis (if there were 'un-natural' radioactive materials that generated 0.1 mr/hour there 23 years ago, there'd likely be unmistakable traces left today)

If we're limited to the documents that Ivan's presented, I'd suggest 'null hypothesis entirely consistent with limited data'.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, to support your position I guess you would need to produce more reports that were directed to the white house. Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).

I don't argue that this report must be true, but there is no reason that I can see, other than the apparent strangeness [this is where I would say high strangeness] of this episode, to dismiss the report. I have no other evidence or documents to offer for this. Finally, heck, I gave up trying to convince you of anything last May! [:D]


Note to readers: We are talking about Iran '76 here, not Bentwaters. The current discussion otherwise is about Bentwaters.

EDIT: Actually, Russ, I don't agree. I have an official report from the NSA. The burden of proof is with you to show why we should ignore this evidence. The defense of this document is found on page two - the evaluation made by the Intelligence officer who filed the report. He states that this information is of high credibility. It was his job to make this determination.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I do have a bit more information on Iran - Two videos. I have not verified any additional claims made but I still post FYI. It is claimed that satellite data supports the initial report. Two commanding officers involved are interviewed.

Then, there are two videos about Bentwaters.

To view the videos about these events go to:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html

For Iran, see the 14th selection from the top, 1st and 2nd options from the left.

For Bentwaters, see the 7th from the top, 1st and 2nd from the left.

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are some eyewitness comments that I think further support my suggestion that indeed, just as suggested by Lord Hill-Norton, the personnel at Bentwaters may have been hallucinating. These comments are taken from a number of interviews with 4 officers that approached one or another of the UFOs at close range. Again, this all took place over three nights. First, before addressing the potential hallucinations, we have a few interesting details of the object as viewed by Halt:

“The object was bright like the sun…but with a black center”

“Something like molten metal was dripping…like out of a crucible”

“A beam of light hit the ground right in front of us.…like a LASER beam”

“Then it exploded [without a sound] into 5 white lights that disappeared”

Halt also believes that another person present, Larry Warren, Airman 1st class, was permanently affected by the experience. Halt thinks this was caused by the debriefing where he believes sodium pentothal was used on the soldier, but perhaps these alleged mental affects could relate to the direct contact made with the UFO. Warren experienced what could be considered a dramatic hallucination. Like Halt, Warren said that he saw a ball of light that exploded without a sound. However, unlike Halt who was about 100 yards distant from the UFO at the time of the "explosion of light", Warren was very close to the UFO. Immediately after the burst of light, Warren thinks he saw alien beings of some kind in a structured craft.

Another Airman 1st Class - Edward Cabansag- claims also to have seen a number of glowing orbs acting and interacting strangely. In one interview, Cabansag claims that a glowing orb approached him and silently exploded “into” a structured craft. I thought that he was present with Warren, but it seems that he was present with Penniston on the first night.

So then we have Technical Sgt. Jim Penniston who also approached one of the UFOs at close range [I think on night number one]. He was taking notes the entire time. He produced a notebook that he claims is from that night. As he reads his own observations from 1980, he has what appears to be a spontaneous emotional reaction – he becomes tearful and wants to stop the interview for a moment. At this point the notes indicate that he was within about 10 meters of the object and his writing becomes illegible. This seemed to provoke the emotional response. AFter this we see his notes again and the detailed description of the UFO, his writing is again legible. This suggests to me that the detailed description of the UFO may have been written later; perhaps after the UFO has disappeared. I don’t mean to say that he is lying, rather that his memories of the events do not agree exactly with the actual events. In other words, perhaps when he approached the UFO he began to hallucinate. His exact actions and recall from this moment on are IMO highly suspect. He may have inadvertently filled in memory gaps with false information, or information from other experiences, or memories formed during a hallucination. If he did write these descriptions down immdiately after his contact with the UFO, he may not even realize now that this is the case.

Finally, not discussed thus far is Staff Sgt. Monroe Nevels. Nevels was the radiation and photography expert on site. He took the radiation measurements and confirms the results in the interview.

Of course, it may have happened just as the witnesses claim, or they could all be lying. We might consider a secret super technology, or some kind of mind control experiments to be the cause. Again, in spite of all of the accusations of secrets and conspiracies, the information released does not seem to be considered sensitive information - we are reading the report! Also, no one is being arrested for telling their story. Is it possible that everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge?

EDIT: Additional names and details are included. A few corrections are made.

[Ivan Seeking]

Final note: The Sci-Fi channel hired a scientist to measure the radiation on site. As reported, no elevated radiation levels were measured. When they first began the show, Halt asks if the geiger counter measures in "mr", the reply is I think "tens per second". I was not familiar with this unit of measure.

Edit: Also, here is a memo that discusses the film and RADAR. The existence of the film is confirmed; the RADAR is denied. Penniston claims verbal confirmation of RADAR at the time. I thought that I had docs to support this claim but I haven't found them yet. If I do I will post.

See p17/35
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart2.pdf



Comments or objections?

Next case?

[Ivan Seeking]

I will assume for the moment that someone is still reading.

Not to be confused with the Bentwaters case above, These events took place in England on August 13-14, 1956. This case also took place around Bentwaters. The source for this is ultimately project Bluebook - the USAF's official investigation into UFOs. All data can be confirmed through official reports. Here is a brief excerpt from the report:

According to the Bluebook report on the Lakenheath incident, the Bentwaters GCA radar, at 22:55Z, picked up a URE 30 mi. east (of Bentwaters) moving to the west at an apparent speed of "2000 to 4000 mph." In the map shown at right, the track of the URE appears identical with No. 3 except for the vanishing point. This URE then "disappeared on scope 2 mi. east of station and immediately appeared on scope 3 mi. west of station ... it disappeared 30 mi. west of station on scope." If the word "immediately" means that the URE was picked up on the same PPI sweep, after 180 deg. rotation from east to west, it would imply that the apparent motion covered 5 mi. in 1 sec, an inferred speed of some 18,000 mph. At this rate the URE would have covered the 60 mi. track in about 12 sec (6 PPI sweeps). As pointed out, this may have been URE No. 3 from the Bentwaters Bluebook report, which is estimated at 12,000 mph, although the reported times are different .

A complete accounting and some discussion is found at the link.

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/laken.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

One more comment on the Bentwaters 1980 case: After an hour long conversation with Col. Halt [now retired], my guess would be that he doesn't think much of my suggested explanation.

Also, after double checking it also would seem that Sgt. Penniston was in touch with and in the view of other security personell the entire time. Also, Cabanasag was present with Penniston.

[Ivan Seeking]

For the complete report please see:

http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/case02.htm

This is the Bluebook file [EDIT: I should say the Condon report on the Bluebook case file] on the Lakenheath case above. I almost got these confused - they are the same case.
Abstract:

At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings of round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions abruptly. Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one aircraft was vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported airborne radar contact and radar gunlock., The UFO appeared to circle around behind the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot's evasive maneuvers. Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to base, low on fuel. The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case. The weather was generally clear with good visibility. Background:

The existence of this very interesting radar-visual case was first brought to the attention of the project staff in winter 1968 by the receipt of an unsolicited letter from one of the principal witnesses, a retired USAF non-commissioned officer who was the Watch Supervisor at the GCA station on the night in question. This letter is rather well written, it forms the most coherent account of this UFO case, it is reproduced below in its entirety.

Reference your UFO Study: you probably already have this item in your file, but, in case you don't, I will briefly outline it and you can contact me for full details if you want them.


[[372]]



I retired (20 years service)...from the USAF. I have placed my name, rank, and serial number at the top of the page if you want to check on my authenticity. I was an Air Traffic Controller throughout my service career and utilized radar the last 16 years in the control of Air Traffic. I won't bother listing the types and locations, although I could supply all this if needed.

In 1956,...(I can't remember the exact date or month), I was on duty as Watch Supervisor at... [GCA A] in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center. It was the 5:00 p.m. to midnight shift. I had either four or five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisor's Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually I'm not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was... [GCA B] calling and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes traveling at 4,000 mph. They said they had watched a target on their scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east...to a point 40 miles west of...[GCA B]. The target passed directly over... [GCA B] RAF Station (also an USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it go by and it just appeared to be a blurry light. A C-47 flying over the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range-from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of... [GCA A]. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone is I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using


[[373]]



full MTI on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or no traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at ... [A] to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target was on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north, northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of ... [A]. There was no slow start or build-up to this speed--it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped.

I called and reported all the facts to this point, including... [B] GCA's initial report, to the ...Command Post... ...I also hooked in my local AFB Commanding Officer and my Unit (AFCS Communications Squadron) Commander on my switchboard. And there could have been others hooked in also that I was not aware of. I repeated all the facts known to this point and continued to give a detailed report on the target's movements and location. The target made several changes in location,


[[374]]


always in a straight line, always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to his next stop at constant speed--no build-up in speed at all--these changes in location varied from 8 miles to 20 miles in length--no set pattern at any time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes to 5 or 6 minutes (possibly even longer as I was busy answering questions--listening to theories, guesses, etc. that the conference line people were saying). This continued for some time. After I imagine about 30 to 45 minutes, it was decided to scramble two RAF interceptors to investigate. This was done I believe by Air Force calling the RAF and, after hearing what the score was, they scrambled one aircraft. (The second got off after as I will mention later.)

The interceptor aircraft took off from an RAF Station...and approached... [A] from the southwest. Radio and radar contact was established with the RAF intercept aircraft at a point about 30 to 35 miles southwest...[and] inbound to...[A]. On initial contact we gave the interceptor pilot all the background information on the UFO, his (the interceptor's) present distance and bearing from... [A], the UFO's (which was stationary at the time) distance and bearing from... [A]. We explained we did not know the altitude of the UFO but we could assume his altitude was above 15,000 feet and below 20,000 feet, due to the operational


[[375]]

characteristics of the radar (CPS-5 type radar, I believe). Also we mentioned the report from the C-47 over . . . [B] that relayed the story about the light which passed below him. His altitude was 5,000 feet.

We immediately issued headings to the interceptor to guide him to the UFO. The UFO remained stationary throughout. This vectoring of the intercept aircraft continued. We continually gave the intercept aircraft his heading to the UFO and his distance from the UFO at approximately 1 to 2 mile intervals. Shortly after we told the intercept aircraft he was one-half mile from the UFO and it was twelve-o'clock from his position, he said, "Roger, ...I've got my guns locked on him." Then he paused and said, "Where did he go? Do you still have him?" We replied, "Roger, it appeared he got behind you and he's still there." [There were now two targets; one behind the other, same speed, very close, but two separate distinct targets.]

The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the interceptor); I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told us he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried everything--he climbed, dived, circled, etc. but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets. [Note: Target resolution on our radar at the range they were from the antenna (about 10 to 30 miles, all in the southerly sectors from... [A])


[[376]]


would be between 200 and 600 feet probably. Closer than that we would have got one target from both aircraft and UFO. Most specifications say 500 feet is the minimum, but I believe it varies and 200 to 600 feet is closer to the truth and, in addition, the tuning of the equipment, atmospheric conditions, etc., also help determine this figure.]

The interceptor pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about ten minutes (approximate -- it seemed longer both to him and us). He continued to comment occasionally and we could tell from the tonal quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared.

He finally said, "I'm returning to Station, .......[A]. Let me know if he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The target (UFO) followed him only a short distance, as he headed south southwest, and the UFO stopped and remained stationary. We advised the interceptor that the UFO target had stopped following and was now stationary about 10 miles south of...[A] He rogered this message and almost immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency. We replied and told him we would advise him when we had a radar target, so we could establish radar contact with his aircraft. (He was not on radar at this time, probably had just taken off and was too low for us to pick him up, or too far away--we had most of the scopes on short range, so we could watch the UFO closely on the smaller range.) The number two interceptor called the number one interceptor by name (Tom, Frank--whatever his name was) and asked him, "Did you see anything?" Number one replied,


[[377]]


"I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was."

[Ivan Seeking]

This report is difficult to read and it is six pages long. In short, we have multiple eyewitnesses - pilots and airmen in several military transport or other [e.g. an RB47] aircrafts - who confirm RADAR contact by multiple land stations; in addition to the RADAR on the aircraft mentioned. An unknown, bright object moves at sufficiently high speeds to outpace at least one fighter jet that was scrambled for intercept. The object is seen to hover, and to fly in "highly erratic" zig zag patterns that seem to defy conventional explanations. It was finally lost when the UFO climbed too high to be intercepted, and then disappeared from view.

Please see pages 9-14 of 26 in this NSA file:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf

[Ivan Seeking]

Two UFOs are tracked on RADAR by multiple ground stations. Ufo tracking is "handed off" from one station to the next. The report continues for several pages with the most significant details listed below:

1). One jet was sent to investigate but no object was seen.

2). "An attempt was made by members of the Radar Site, Falmenco Island, to observe the objects by searchlights. When the light touched the objects, they traveled from an altitude of two thousand feet to ten thousand feet in in five to ten seconds. This was such a rapid movement, that the Track Radar, which was locked on target, broke the track lock and was unable to keep up with the ascent of the objects."

3). Balloons were ruled out.

4). The objects moved away from two USAF jet aircraft that approached. The UFOs were said to avoid the jets; according to the Radar opertators. EDIT: "The UFO moved a few miles away from the jets and then stopped." The pilots of the jets never saw the UFO.

5). A pilot on an incoming DC 6 reported seeing a UFO that appeared larger than the aircraft [presumably the commercial airliner]

6). The two UFOs flew while separated by only 100 yards distance.

7). Another incoming commercial flight reported a negative sighting of the UFO even thought Radar showed the object only 100 yards from the plane.

8). False Radar returns due to clouds and other weather conditions are ruled out.


please see pages 17 through 21 of 26: http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf


EDIT: note that I have edited my response on 12/14 to Russ's post of 12/13.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't have the official files for this, but the event is so well known and documented that I will post general references.

EDIT: Here is the Condon Report on this. See this section:

Washington, D.C. (see Appendix L) 19-20 and 26-27 July 1952.
Weather: mostly clear, a few scattered clouds, visibility 10 to 15 mi., temperature 76° to 87°F, dewpoint 61° to 72°F, surface winds from SE, light, near surface, from 300° to 320° aloft, light. Radio refractive index profiles are shown in Figs. 13, 14, and 15, in Md., at an elevation of 88 m. (289 ft.) above sea level. There are a tremendous number of reports of UFOs observed on these two nights. In most instances visual observers, especially in scrambled aircraft, were unable to see targets indicated on ground radar, or to make airborne radar contact. Ground radar observers were often able to find a return in the general area of reported visual contacts, especially in the case of ground visual reports where only an azimuth was given. A few excerpts from typical reports during these incidents are given below:

Control tower operator, Andrews AFB, 0100 to 0500 EST, 20 July 1952:

An airman became excited during the conversation and suddenly yelled "there goes one." I saw a falling star go from overhead a short distance south and burn out. About two minutes later (the airman) said, "There's another one...

[[227]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here:
http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/s3chap05.htm




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A31625-2002Jul19&notFound=true

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/aliens/UFOWashington.htm

http://www.rense.com/general8/flew.htm


See this link for a photograph of the UFOs.
http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFOWashingtonDC.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Case 21. Colorado Springs, Colo., 13 May 1967, 1540 LST (1640 MDT). Weather: overcast, cold, scattered showers and snow showers (graupel) in area, winds northerly about 30 mph., gusts to 40 mph., visibility air -- more than 15 mi. (Colorado Springs airport is not horizon-limited; visibilities of 100 mi. are routinely reported on clear days). This is a radar-only case, and is of particular interest because the UFO could not be seen, when there was every indication that it should have been seen.(See Section IV).

From the time the UFO was first picked up on radar to the time the Braniff flight touched down on runway 35, the UFO track behaved like a ghost echo, perhaps a ground return being reflected from the aircraft. This is indicated by the fact that the UFO blip appeared at about twice the range of the Braniff blip, and on the same azimuth, although the elevation angle appears to have been different. When Braniff touched down, however, the situation changed radically. The UFO blip pulled to the right (east) and passed over the airport at an indicated height of about 200 ft. As pointed out by the FAA, this is precisely the correct procedure for an overtaking aircraft, or one which is practicing an ILS approach but does not actually intend to touch down. Although the UFO track passed within 1.5 mi. of the control tower, and the personnel there were alerted to the situation, the UFO was not visible, even through binoculars. A continental Airlines flight, which was monitored 3-4 mi. behind the UFO at first contact, and was flying in the same direction, never saw it either.

Both the PAR and ASR radar transmitting antennas are located to the east of runway 35, and they are about 1,000 ft. apart on a SW-NE line. A ghost echo seems to be ruled out by at least the following considerations:

[[258]]

A ghost echo, either direct or indirect, normally will not be indicated at a height of 200 ft. while the ghost-producer is on the ground, as was the case here;

A direct ghost is always at the same azimuth as the moving target, and an indirect ghost is on the same azimuth as the fixed reflector involved. (See Section VI Chapter 5). If an indirect ghost were involved here, the ghost echo would thus have always appeared well to the east of Braniff, not at the same azimuth.
The radar flight characteristics of the UFO in this case were all compatible with the hypothesis that the unknown was a century-series jet (F100, F104, etc.), yet nothing was ever seen or heard.

This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record, and no conclusion is possible at this time. It seems inconceivable that an anomalous propagation echo would behave in the manner described, particularly with respect to the reported altitude changes, even if AP had been likely at the time. In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP return would appear only once, and at that time appear to execute a perfect practice ILS approach?


http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/s3chap05.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

Please see also "The Marfa mystery lights of Texas":
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7371

EARTHQUAKE LIGHTS OBSERVED IN CANADA

Fireballs a few metres in diameter often popped out of the ground in a repetitive manner at distances of up to only a few metres away from the observers. Others were seen several hundred metres up in the sky, stationary or moving. Some observers described dripping luminescent droplets, rapidly disappearing a few metres under the stationary fireballs.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074g14.htm


Quote from Col Halt:
“Something like molten metal was dripping…like out of a crucible” [from the sunlike floating orb]

[Ivan Seeking]

Abstract:

The crew of a B-47 aircraft described an encounter with a large ball of light which was also displayed for a sustained time for both airborne radar monitoring receivers and on ground radar units. The encounter had occurred ten years prior to this study. Project Blue Book had no record of it. Attempts to locate any records of the event, in an effort to learn the identity of the encountered phenomenon, failed to produce any information. The phenomenon remains unidentified.

Background:

At a project-sponsored conference for air base UFO officers, held in Boulder in June 1967, one of the officers revealed that he personally had experienced a puzzling UFO encounter some ten years previously. According to the officer, a Major at the time of the encounter, he was piloting a B-47 on a gunnery and electronic counter-measures training mission from an AFB. The mission had taken the crew over the gulf of Mexico, and back over South Central United States where they encountered a glowing source of both visual and 2,800 mHz. electromagnetic radiation of startling intensity, which, during part of the encounter, held a constant position relative to the B-47 for an extended period. Ground flight control radar also received a return from the "object," and reported its range to the B-47 crew, at a position in agreement with radar and visual observations from the aircraft.

According to the officer, upon return to the AFB electronic counter-measures, graphic data, and radar scope pictures which had been taken during the flight were removed from the plane by Intelligence personnel. He recalled that an Intelligence questionnaire regarding the experience had later been completed by the B-47 crew; however, the "security lid"

[[397]]

shut off further information regarding the encounter. The crew learned nothing more regarding the incident, and the pilot occasionally had wondered about the identity of the phenomena encountered ever since his experience....

.... After the UFO had held the two o'clock position and ten-mile range through various test changes in aircraft speed, the number two monitoring officer informed the pilot that the target was starting to move up-scope. It moved to a position dead ahead of the plane, holding a ten-mile range, and again became visible to the eye as a huge, steady, red glow. The pilot went to maximum speed. The target appeared to stop, and as the plane got close to it and flew over it, the target disappeared from visual observation, from monitor number two, and from ground radar. (The operator of monitor number two also recalled the B-47 navigator's having this target on his radar, and the target's disappearing from his radar scope at the same time). The pilot began to turn back. About half way around the turn, the target reappeared on both the monitor and ground radar scopes and visually at an estimated altitude of 15,000 ft. The pilot received permission from Ground Control to change altitude, and dove the plane at the target, which appeared stationary. As the plane approached to an estimated distance of five miles the target vanished again from both visual observation and radar. Limited fuel caused the pilot to abandon the chase at this point and head for his base. As the pilot leveled off at 20,000 ft. a target again appeared on number two monitor, this time behind the B-47. The officer operating the number two monitoring unit, however, believes that he may have been picking up the ground radar signal at this point. The signal faded out as the B-47 continued flight.

The co-pilot and number two monitoring officer were most impressed by the sudden disappearance of the target and its reappearance at a new location. As they recalled the event, the target could be tracked part of the time on the radar monitoring screen, as described above, but, at least once, disappeared from the right side of the plane, appeared on their left, then suddenly on their right again, with no "trail" on the radar scope to indicate movement of the target between successive positions....

http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/case05.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

One potentially major WWII UFO event is inappropriately called The Battle of Los Angeles. I have a little bit of knowledge of this event since my dad was there. The newspaper reports are widely available and the only real question is at what, if anything, did the civil defenses of Los Angeles fire over 1400 anti-aircraft rounds in 1942. The following link provides mostly factual information. Please ignore any introductory hype. The reports that follow are directly from the local papers of the time. Next, a link to Bruce Maccabee's analysis of the photos is given.

http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofLA.htm

http://www.rense.com/general28/histla.htm

Maccabee's analysis:
http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BattleofLA.html

[Carlos Hernandez]

If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it.

Because the debunkers are the Men In Black? Actually, there are books claiming that Men in Black really do exist. I of course always remain agnostic, until I acquire some tangible proof.

Here is a good ufo site: http://www.disclosureproject.com/

[Ivan Seeking]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION FORM
AR 340-15: the proponent agency is The Adjutant General's Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Office Symbol ) Subject
)
) Near Midair Collision with UFO Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Commandor Flight Operations Off DATE 23 Nov 73 Cmt 1
83D USARCOM USAR Flight Facility
ATTN: AHRCCG Cleveland Hopkins Airport
Columbus Support Facility Cleveland, Ohio 44135


1. On 18 October 1973 at 2305 hours in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio,Army Helicopter 68-15444 assigned to Cleveland USARFFAC encountered a near midair collision with a unidentified flying object. Four crewmembers assigned to the Cleveland USARFFAC for flying proficiency were on AFTP status when this incident occurred. The flight crew assigned was CPT Lawrence J. Coyne, Pilot in Command,1LT Arrigo Jozzi, Copilot, SSG Robert Yanacsek, Crew Chief, SSG John Healey,Flight Medio,All the above personnel are member of the 316th MED DET(HEL AMB). a tenant reserve unit of the Cleveland USARFFAC.

2. The reported incident happened as follows: Army Helicopter 68-15444 was returning from Columbus, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio and at 2305 hours east, south east of Mansfield Airport in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio while flying at an altitude of 2500 feet and on a heading of 030 degrees, SSG Yanacsek observed a red light on the east horizon,90 drgrees to the flight path of the helicopter. Approximately 30 seconds later, SSG Yanacsek indicated the object was converging on the helicopter at the same altitude at a airspeed in excess of 600 knots and on a midair collision heading.

Cpt Coyne observed the converging object, took over the controls of the aircraft and initiated a power descent from 2500 feet to 1700 feet to avoid impact with the object. A radio call was initiated to Mansfield Tower who acknowledged the helicopter and was asked by CPT Coyne if there were any high performance aircraft flying in the vicinity of Mansfield Airport however there was no response received from the tower. The crew expected impact from the object instead, the object was observed to hesistate momontarily over the helicopter and then slowly continued on a westerly course accelerating at a high rate of speed, clear west of Mansfield Airport then turn 45 degree heading to the Northwest. Cpt Coyne indicated the altimeter read a 1000 fpm olimp and read 3500 feet with the collective in the full down position. The aircraft was returned to 2500 feet by CPT Coyne and flown back to Cleveland, Ohio. The flight plan was closed and the FAA Flight Service Station notified of the incident. The FSS told CPT Coyne to report the incident to the FAA GADO office a Cleveland Hopkins Airport Mr. Porter, 83d USARCOM was notified of the incident at 1530 hours on 19 Oct 73.

3. This report has been read and attested to by the crewmembers of the aircraft with signatures acknowledgeing this report.

Lawrence J. Coyne Arrigo Jozzi
_______________________ _____________________

Robert Yanacsek John Healey
_______________________ ______________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA FORM 2496
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa081098.htm

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/coyne.htm

The FOIA document for this event:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_007.htm

[Loren Booda]

We have seen the alien and he is us.

[Ivan Seeking]

6. Hessdalen Project

Strand summarized the design and operation of the Hessdalen Project. Hessdalen is a valley in central Norway, 120 kilometers south of Trondheim. The valley is 12 kilometers long and a maximum of 5 kilometers wide. The hills to the west and to the east rise to about 1,000 meters above sea level. Most people in the valley live at a height of about 800 meters.

In December 1981 the inhabitants of the Hessdalen valley began to report seeing strange lights. They were sometimes visible three or four times a day. There were hundreds of reports during the period 1981 to 1985, but the phenomenon began to decrease during 1984, and since 1985 there have been comparatively few sightings. Most observations were on winter nights: there were comparatively few during the summer or during the day.

Witnesses reported observations that seemed to fit into three different categories:

Type 1: A yellow "bullet," with the sharp end pointing down.
Type 2: A strong blue-white light, sometimes flashing, always moving.
Type 3: A pattern comprising many light sources with different colors that moved as if they were physically connected.

In 1983, a small group with five participants set up "Project Hessdalen." They received assistance from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, the University of Oslo, and the University of Bergen. They carried out field work in the Hessdalen valley from January 21, 1984 to February 26, 1984, when up to 19 investigators were in the field at the same time. The project then involved three stations with observers and their cameras, some cameras fitted with gratings to obtain spectroscopic information. At the principal station, observers used the following equipment: cameras, some fitted with gratings; an infrared viewer; a spectrum analyzer; a seismograph; a magnetometer; radar equipment; a laser; and a Geiger counter.

Lights that were recorded to be below the contours of the mountains must have originated in the Hessdalen region, but lights that were recorded to be above the crest line may have originated at a great distance. Without triangulation or other information, it is impossible to determine the distances of the lights. However, some of the events that were seen as lights were tracked also by radar. If taken at face value, the radar measurements would imply speeds up to 30,000 kilometers per hour. (However, see Appendix 4.)

During a period of four days, unknown lights were seen on 10 occasions, and the flux-gate magnetometer registered 21 pulsations, of which 4 appear to correspond with the observations of lights, suggesting an association between some of the unknown lights and magnetic disturbances. The gratings on the cameras were intended to obtain spectroscopic data: the spectra appear to be continuous, with no indication of either emission lines or absorption lines.

Observations continue to be reported from the Hessdalen valley; the rate is now about 20 reports per year. An automatic measurement station, for installation in Hessdalen, is now being developed and prepared at Ostfold College (Norway), which is the present base of Project Hessdalen. This station will include a CCD-type camera in the visible region. The output from the CCD-camera will be fed automatically to a computer which will trigger a video recorder. This automatic station will hopefully prove to be but a first step in the development of a network of stations.

As a result of this presentation, the panel concluded that there would be merit to designing and deploying a not-too-complicated set of instruments. These should be operated according to a strict protocol in regions where the probability of significant sightings appears to be reasonably high. It is recommended that, as a first step, a set of two separate video recorders be equipped with identical wide-angle objectives and installed on two distant fixed tripods to help eliminate the possibility that some of the apparent motions detected by video recorders are due to the operators' hand movements or ground vibrations. It would also be useful to set up two identical cameras, one of which is fitted with a grating. However, experience so far at Hessdalen indicates that a grating may not be adequate for obtaining spectroscopic information. In view of the great importance of spectroscopic data, it would be highly desirable that special equipment be developed and deployed for obtaining high-resolution spectroscopic data from transient moving sources. This may be a nontrivial problem.

If it proves possible to obtain useful results from a small system, such as suggested above, one may be able to make the case for the design and implementation of a permanent surveillance network. This should be designed as a multi-purpose system so that costs and data can both be shared. This could resemble the Eurociel project that was studied in Europe in the 1980s at the request of GEPAN/SEPRA. (See Appendix 1.)

The panel notes that in cases that involve repeated, semi-regular sightings of lights (such as are said to occur at Hessdalen in Norway and at Marfa in Texas), it is difficult to understand why no rational explanation has been discovered, and it would seem that a small investment in equipment and time should produce useful results.

From:
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the
Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 – October 4, 1997

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html

[Ivan Seeking]

UFO still puzzles 30 years later
Soldiers encountered something strange in 'Coyne Incident'

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20031018/localnews/476885.html

[Ivan Seeking]

The following files (6) are from the work of Don Berliner, who compiled a listing of the Project Bluebook "unknowns" .
CONTENTS
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six (Conclusion)
Bluebook Part 1
THE BLUE BOOK UNKNOWNS
The unexplained UFO reports from the files of the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book UFO investigations.

Compiled by Don Berliner, for the Fund for UFO Research

the conclusions or views expressed in this publication are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Fund for UFO Research, Inc.

THE UNEXPLAINED UFO CASES FROM THE PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILES

In January, 1974, I visited the U.S. Air Force Archives at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala., to review the files of Project Blue Book as the first step toward writing a book on the subject.

In a full week, I read all the "unexplained" cases in the original files and made extensive notes, including the names and other identifying information on all witnesses where given. The cooperation of the staff of the Archives was excellent, and no restrictions were placed on my work.

A few months later, the files were withdrawn from public view so they could be prepared for transfer to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This process involved making a xerox copy of almost 30 file drawers of material, blacking out the names and other identifiers of all witnesses, and then microfilming the censored xerox copy. The microfilm has been available to the public at the National Archives since 1976. The original Project Blue Book files remain under lock and key at the Archives.

On almost every page of the 12,000+ case files, there are big black marks where information that could be used to cross-check Project Blue Book's controversial work has been censored.

This includes the names of witnesses to widely-publicized cases, and even names in newspaper clippings!

As it was perfectly legal for me to copy witness' names when I visited the Air Force Archives, those names can be found in this report of 585 (less 13 missing) unexplained cases. And since the Privacy Act, which motivated the Air Force to censor the files in the first place, does not apply to reporters or anyone else outside the Government, they can be used as the reader pleases.

Inasmuch as the book I planned to write has never progressed beyond the manuscript stage, I see no reason to keep this information under wraps any longer. Perhaps it will encourage others to re-investigate cases and make the results known.

"Unidentified" says a great deal...and it says almost nothing.

Probably the most controversial aspect of the entire Air Force investigation of UFOs was its handling of individual cases.

The means by.which one case was determined to be "identified" and another "unidentified" has no doubt fueled more arguments about Project Blue Book than anything else it did.

For many years, Blue Book's most vocal opponents have insisted that the standards by which cases were allegedly explained were grossly unscientific. Blue Book's goal, according to those who held it low esteem, was to attach some explanation to every case, regardless of logic or common sense. Examples of Blue Book saying a violently maneuvering disc was an aircraft, or of blaming a puzzling radar tracking on a supposedly malfunctioning radar set which it never bothered to check out, are numerous in the popular UFO literature.

And they are even more numerous in the files of Project Blue Book. The urgency with which Blue Book officials tagged answers onto cases without having done the proper investigation is obvious, though not proven. But if the Air Force was so eager to label cases "identified", despite the lack of supporting evidence, then those few cases which it labeled "unidentified" presumably withstood every attempt to apply every other kind of label. And so it may be that those cases are truly unidentifiable in familiar terms.

Indeed, the Air Force defines "unidentifiable" cases as those which "apparently contain all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the lack of explanation of the report, but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon."

To meet such criteria, a report must obviously come from a reputable source, and it must not bear any resemblance to airplanes, balloons, helicopters, spacecraft, birds, clouds, stars, planets, meteors, comets, electrical phenomena, or anything else known to frequent the air, the sky, or nearby space.

Unfortunately, the Air Force failed to stick to its own rules. Some of the "unidentifiable" cases most certainly can be correlated with known objects or phenomena. But most of them cannot. Moreover, many of the so-called "identified" cases cannot honestly be so correlated. But we are primarily concerned here with those cases which Project Blue Book openly admits it tried to explain and failed.

For the complete text and the list of USAF's "Bluebook Unknowns" please see this link:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/unknowns.htm

Obviously many of these cases could not and cannot be investigated. This list is presented only for completeness.

[Ivan Seeking]

Many cases do not support my suggestion that "UFOs" are a natural phenomenon. Perhaps the secret super technology hypothesis can account for some of the sightings that follow.

JAL Flight 1628: 1986

Dateline:02/07/00

November 17, 1986
Over northeastern Alaska


It was just a routine flight. Well, not exactly routine.... It was a special Japan Air Lines 747 cargo flight to carry a load of French wine from Paris to Tokyo. The flight plan would carry flight 1628 from Paris to Reykjavik, Iceland, across the North Atlantic and Greenland, then across Canada to Anchorage, Alaska, and finally across the Pacific to Tokyo. The crew consisted of veteran Captain Kenju Terauchi, co-pilot Takanori Tamefuji, and flight engineer Yoshio Tsukuba.

On November 16, 1986, laden with wine, JAL1628 took off from Paris and flew the first leg of the trip, to Reykjavik. The next day, they continued, flying over Greenland and then across northern Canada without event.

Just after they crossed into Alaska, at 5:09 PM local time, Anchorage Air Traffic Control contacted them on the radio to report initial radar contact. The Anchorage flight controller asked them to turn 15 degrees to the left and head for a point known as Talkeetna on a heading of 215 degrees. They were at 35,000 feet and traveling at a ground speed of about 600 mph.

At about 5:11 PM local time, Captain Terauchi noticed the lights of some sort of aircraft about 2000 feet below and 30 degrees to the left front of them. He decided that the aircraft was probably an American jet fighter from nearby Eielson or Elmendorf Air Force Bases patrolling Alaskan airspace, so he ignored them at first. However, after a few minutes, he noticed that the lights were keeping pace with his own aircraft, which would be an unusual thing for patrolling jets to do.

It was about seven or so minutes since we began paying attention to the lights (when), most unexpectedly, two spaceships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights. The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face.

Terauchi said that it was his impression that the two objects he had seen below them minutes before had suddenly jumped in from of him. The craft, one above the other, kept pace with the 747 for several minutes, moving in unison with an odd rocking motion. After about seven minutes, they changed to a side-by-side arrangement. Terauchi said that the "amber and whitish" lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular rows on the craft. He felt that they fired in a particular sequence to stabilize the craft, much like the small maneuvering thrusters on the Space Shuttle. He also reported seeing sparks like a fire when using gasoline or carbon fuel.

Co-pilot Tamefuji described the lights as "Christmas assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. He said: I remember red or orange, and white landing light, just like a landing light. And weak green, ah, blinking. He also described the lights as pulsating slowly. They became stronger, became weaker., became stronger, became weaker, different from strobe lights. The lights were "swinging" in unison as if there were "very good formation flight...close" of two aircraft side by side. He described the appearance of the lights as similar to seeing "night flight head-on traffic", where it is only possible to see the lights on an approaching aircraft and "we can not see the total shape." He said, I'm sure I saw something. It was clear enough to make me believe that there was an oncoming aircraft.

Flight engineer Tsukuba, who sat behind the copilot, did not have as good a view of the lights. He first saw them "through the L1 window at the 11 o'clock position" and he saw "clusters of lights undulating". These clusters were "made of two parts...shaped like windows of an airplane". He emphasized that "the lights in front of us were different from town lights." He described the colors as white or amber.

Tamefuji decided to call Anchorage Air Traffic Control, and for the next thirty minutes the 747 and AARTCC were in constant contact regarding the UFO.

During this time, Captain Terauchi asked Tskububa to hand him a camera so that he could attempt to take a photograph of the lights. However, Terauchi was unfamiliar with the camera and could not get it to operate. Tsukuba also could not get his camera to operate due to problems with the auto-focus and finally gave up trying to take a photo.

At this point they began experiencing some radio interference and were asked by Anchorage to change frequencies. Terauchi later said that Anchorage kept asking him about clouds in the immediate area: They asked us several times if there were clouds near our altitude. We saw thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below us, no clouds in mid-to-upper air, and the air current was steady.

Soon after the exchanges about clouds, the objects flew off to the left. Terauchi said later: There was a pale white flat light in the direction where the ships flew away, moving in a line along with us, in the same direction and same speed and at the same altitude as we were.

Terauchi decided to see whether they could see anything on the 747's own radar:

I thought it would be impossible to find anything on an aircraft radar if a large ground radar did not show anything, but I judged the distance of the object visually and it was not very far. I set the digital weather radar distance to 20 (nautical) miles, radar angle to horizon (i.e., no depression angle). There it was on the screen. A large green and round object had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was. We reported to Anchorage center that our radar caught the object within 7 or 8 miles in the 10 o'clock position. We asked them if they could catch it on ground radar but it did not seem they could catch it at all

At 5:25:45, after spending two minutes looking, the military radar at Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center also picked up something. The ROCC radar controller reported back to the AARTCC that he was getting some "surge primary return." By this he meant an occasional radar echo unaccompanied by a transponder signal....

See the following link for the complete text and other links.

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa020700a.htm

http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/Jal1628.html

http://ufos.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.qtm.net/%7Egeibdan/a2000/jan/k2.htm

http://ufos.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.vandra.clara.net/parvati/caus8606.txt

[Loren Booda]

...and the wine was later found turned to Perrier.

[Ivan Seeking]

Missing F-89 Case

03-July-1999
The 23 November 1953 "Kinross Case," wherein a US Air Force F-89C jet fighter was scrambled from Kinross AFB Michigan on an "active air defense mission" to intercept an "unknown aircraft" and disappeared with two crew members aboard, is considered by many to be one of the "UFO classics." Controversy remains over what the "unknown aircraft," which was the target of the interception, was. USAF records presented here indicate that it was a Canadian aircraft. Canadian officials have denied that any of their aircraft was the target of an interception mission by the USAF on the date in question. The USAF seems to have changed its story over the years about just what Canadian aircraft was being intercepted and has been silent on the method by which they identified the aircraft. (See the UFO Evidence (Ref. Below) for an official Canadian statement)

It is the occurrence of the radar trace of the "unknown aircraft" and the F-89 appearing to "merge" on the Ground Control radar screen shortly after (voice) radio and IFF contact with the F-89 were lost that has made this case loom large in UFO circles. Some print references have the remaining single "blip" moving rapidly off the radar screens, but the USAF records presented here indicate that the "unknown aircraft" continued on its original course.

The weather, although stable as far as flight is concerned, was winter. Even if the crew survived a hypothetical crash, their chances for survival would be considerably diminished by the freezing temperatures, especially if they went into the water. Snow on the ground certainly hampered the search activities.

Whatever the case, no trace of the F-89 or either of the crewmembers were ever located even though an extensive search was mounted in the days immediately after the F-89 went missing.

All the print references (below) give the last known position of the F-89C as 'at 8000 feet altitude, 70 miles off Keweenaw Point, 160 (or 150) miles northwest of Soo Locks,' probably indicating a single source of information. This location is indeed over Lake Superior.

However, the USAF Aircraft Accident Report material we have indicates on two different documents the last reported position as ": AT COORDINATES 45 DEGREES 00 MINUTES NORTH - 86 DEGREES 49 MINUTES WEST." This position is not over Lake Superior, but is over Lake Michigan. All of Lake Superior is north of 46 degrees north latitude. This seems a considerable discrepancy of about 180 miles. The Canadian search plan quotes the other pilots as saying that if Moncla was in trouble, he would have steered 150 deg (roughly SE) as his "homing" path. This jibes with the point in Lake Superior. The search patterns as depicted in the USAF records also jibe with the Lake Superior area. The point in Lake Michigan is due south of the point in Lake Superior... could the 45 deg N latitude be a typo which should be 47 degrees? See Map with above points plotted.

Click here to view the USAF Aircraft Accident Report

the report continues...

Please see the following links.
http://www.cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm

http://www.cufon.org/kinross/kinross_missing.htm

To my knowledge, this is the only example of a gravestone that relates an UFO to the cause of death. Although this is not significant, it is an unusual bit of trivia.
http://www.nuforc.org/mancla.html

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/kinrossdir.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt:
On January 7 all of the late papers in the U.S. carried headlines similar to those in the Louisville Courier: "F-51 and Capt. Mantell Destroyed Chasing Flying Saucer." This was Volume I of"The Classics," the Mantell Incident.

At one-fifteen on that afternoon the control tower operators at Godman AFB, outside Louisville, Kentucky, received a telephone call from the Kentucky State Highway Patrol. The patrol wanted to know if Godman Tower knew anything about any unusual aircraft in the vicinity. Several people from Maysville, Kentucky, a small town 80 miles east of Louisville, had reported seeing a strange aircraft. Godman knew that they had nothing in the vicinity so they called Flight Service at Wright-Patterson AFB. In a few minutes Flight Service called back. Their air Traffic control board showed no flights in the area. About twenty minutes later the state police called again. This time people from the towns of Owensboro and Irvington, Kentucky, west of Louisville, were reporting a strange craft. The report from these two towns was a little more complete. The towns people had described the object to the state police as being "circular, about 250 to 300 feet in diameter," and moving westward at a "pretty good clip." Godman Tower checked Flight Service again. Nothing. All this time the tower operators had been looking for the reported object. They theorized that since the UFO had had to pass north of Godman to get from Maysville to Owensboro it might come back.

At one forty-five they saw it, or something like it. Later, in his official report, the assistant tower operator said that he had seen the object for several minutes before he called his chiefs attention to it. He said that he had been reluctant to "make a flying saucer report." As soon as the two men in the tower had assured themselves that the UFO they saw was not an airplane or a weather balloon, they called Flight Operations. They wanted the operations officer to see the UFO. Before long word of the sighting had gotten around to key personnel on the base, and several officers, besides the base operations officer and the base intelligence officer, were in the tower. All of them looked at the UFO through the tower's 6 x 50 binoculars and decided they couldn't identify it. About this time Colonel Hix, the base commander, arrived. He looked and he wasbaffled. At two-thirty, they reported, they were discussing what should be done when four F-51's came into view, approaching the base from the south.

The tower called the flight leader, Captain Mantell, and asked him to take a look at the object and try to identify it. One F-51 in the flight was running low on fuel, so he asked permission to go on to his base. Mantell took his two remaining wing men, made a turn, and started after the UFO The people in Godman Tower were directing him as none of the pilots could see the object at this time. They gave Mantell an initial heading toward the south and the flight was last seen heading in the general direction of the UFO.

By the time the F-51's had climbed to 10,000 feet, the two wing men later reported, Mantell had pulled out ahead of them and they could just barely see him. At two forty-five Mantell called the tower and said, "I see something above and ahead of me and I'm still climbing." All the people in the tower heard Mantell say this and they heard one of the wing men call back and ask, "What the hell are we looking for?" The tower immediately called Mantell and asked him for a description of what he saw. Odd as it may seem, no one can remember exactly what he answered. Saucer historians have credited him with saying, "I've sighted the thing. It looks metallic and it's tremendous in size.... Now it's starting to climb." Then in a few seconds he is supposed to have called and said, "It's above me and I'm gaining on it. I'm going to 20,000 feet." Everyone in the tower agreed on this one last bit of the transmission, "I'm going to 20,000 feet," but didn't agree on the first part, about the UFO's being metallic and tremendous.

The two wing men were now at 15,000 feet and trying frantically to call Mantell. He had climbed far above them by this time and was out of sight. Since none of them had any oxygen they were worried about Mantell. Their calls were not answered. Mantell never talked to anyone again. The two wing men leveled off at 15,000 feet, made another fruitless effort to call Mantell, and started to come back down. As they passed Godman Tower on their way to their base, one of them said something to the effect that all he had seen was a reflection on his canopy.

When they landed at their base, Standiford Field, just north of Godman, one pilot had his F-51 refueled and serviced with oxygen, and took off to search the area again. He didn't see anything.

At three-fifty the tower lost sight of the UFO. A few minutes later they got word that Mantell had crashed and was dead.

The report continues...

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/mantell1.htm

The Mantell Case Directory
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/mantelldir.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

I contacted the Roerich Museum in New York and confirmed the following quote. The curator’s assistant, being very familiar with this excerpt then added that Roerich’s wife was also on this expedition. In her diary she comments that this must have been a craft with people from somewhere else; then she suggests the existence of life on other planets. [Ivan]

On August fifth [1929] - something remarkable! We were in our camp in the Kukunor district not far from the Humboldt Chain. In the morning about half-past nine some of our caravaneers noticed a remarkably big black eagle flying over us. Seven of us began to watch this unusual bird. At this same moment another of our caravaneers remarked, ‘There is something far above the bird’. And he shouted in his astonishment. We all saw, in a direction from north to south, something big and shiny reflecting the sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp the thing changed in its direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun.
-----Nicholas Roerich, Altai-Himalaya

[xeguy]

I've skimmed this thread and don't understand why I am supposed to be convinced of UFOs. All these articles that have been posted read like novellas. They generally fall into two different categories:

1. Those that can be explained without invoking UFOs.

2. Those that can't be explained.

Most fall into the first category. Any which fall into the second category neither support or discount UFO involvement. I want tangible proof. It might be fun to believe that these events were the result of ETs (I watched some X-Files when it was on too), but thinking logically, there is no scientific proof. The whole UFO and related pseudoscientific theories rely too much on trying to make "skeptics" prove a negative. Maybe the Philadelphia Expt. sent a naval vessel through time and space and made contact with the Lizard-people (amazing for 1940s era technology), or maybe it was part of degaussing experiment.

Conspiracies and cover-ups are great because it's impossible to disprove them to any devotee's satisfaction. Plus, any "evidence" in favor of one can be manufactured with a bit of imagination and a liberal interpretation of factual events.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
I've skimmed this thread and don't understand why I am supposed to be convinced of UFOs.

If you read the entire thread you will see that your comments are completely out of context.

Also, feel free to explain these case one at a time...with tangible proof. [:)]

[xeguy]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If you read the entire thread you will see that your comments are completely out of context.

Also, feel free to explain these case one at a time...with tangible proof. [:)]

Sure, if I had extended amounts of time and thought anything I would say would change your mind...

For example, you can read about the Los Angeles incident in many places which don't resort to the need for UFOs piloted by ETs.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
Sure, if I had extended amounts of time and thought anything I would say would change your mind...

For example, you can read about the Los Angeles incident in many places which don't resort to the need for UFOs piloted by ETs.


If you read the thread you will see that no ET hypothesis is asserted. It seems your mind is made up before even reading what I have to say.

Thanks for the demo!

[mouseonmoon]

obviously ; the Debunkers have scurred off to their " Bunkers"!!!

(you know who you are!)

not a response! not a new thread!--in days-that makes any sense!!

ergo: UFO's EXIST!!

=====
i would like to suggest that "you"
(whoever yu are)
start a new thread- on TOPIC!

IF you have any 'valid' response!!

InOWs: Debunk this!-name it !

yu 'know' what you're talkin' about...?
or do you?

i'm so tired of of of of 'looney toones'.....

so tired of Skeptics....who _seriously-
haven't done their homework.......

Those who 'scoff' at the mere mention of ......

start a new thread!!! prove to me ( an unbiased bystander-
Baloon Skeptic Society President!)

that:
UFO's do NOT EXIT!!!

peace! and well being to All Flatlanders!

I'm serious!!!!

<<edit: Ok , i admit it sounds like i'm asking 'you' to prove a negative--not so....i'm asking debunkers to show that there are ,in fact, no UFOs in spite of the continuous UFO reports daily....for over 50 years!.....UFOs exist-and there's no need to assume ET is behind it all....they are simply "unidentified"--lets 'identify' 'em!....they don't have to be "Flying Saucers".....something is going on-and it's not all in the minds of 'moonshiners'......

[xeguy]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If you read the thread you will see that no ET hypothesis is asserted. It seems your mind is made up before even reading what I have to say.

Thanks for the demo!

I see no definitive proof of anything on either side.

Glad to help!

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
I see no definitive proof of anything on either side.

Neither do I. That's why it bothers me so much. [;)]

[Ivan Seeking]

A good example of internet debunking.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13065

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Julian Solos. [;)]

[Ivan Seeking]

If this incident seems familiar to you, just maybe you saw the motion picture, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Investigated by NICAP's William Weitzel, this report, also known as the Spauer/Neff Case, was the basis for the UFO "chase" in this film. This case involves police witnesses, confrontation, light beam, brilliant illumination, light engulfment, sound, cat and mouse chase, with rapid upward departure. Special thanks go out to Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS for providing the documentation and to Loy Pressley for converting them into text so I could make the web pages.



Richard Hall:
One of the most dramatic encounters by police officers with an apparently structured, low-level UFO occurred in the early morning of April 17, 1966. Officers of the Portage County, Ohio, Sheriff's Department first saw the object rise up from near ground level, bathing them in light, near Ravenna, Ohio, about 5:00 A.M. Ordered by the sergeant to pursue the object, they chased it for eighty-five miles across the border into Pennsylvania, as it seemed to play a cat-and-mouse game with them. Along the route, police officers from other jurisdictions saw the object and joined in the chase.

Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur and Mounted Deputy Wilbur 'Barney’ Neff had left their scout car to investigate an apparently abandoned automobile on Route 224. Spaur described the sighting in these words:

“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up . . . to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us.... As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car . . and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light. .. . I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.

"He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us. The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum . . . like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes. . . .

"I was petrified, and, uh, so I moved my right foot, and everything seemed to work all right. And evidently he made the same decision I did, to get something between me and it, or us and it, or whatever you would say. So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there....[continued]

For the complete report and copies of the police records:
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/portagedir.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

AIR INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION REPORT

Dir/Int, Hq NEAC IR-4-51 page 2 of 2 pages

1. The following described unidentifed aircraft/object was sighted off the coast of Newfoundland by MATS Navy C-54 crew.

a. Originally sighted as a single, heavy, yellowish light, similar in appearance to that of a city. As object approached observing aircraft, it grew very bright and large, and appeared to be simi-circular in shape. Near aircraft, it did a 180 degree turn and was last seen as a small ball disappearing over the horizon. The speed was "terrific" and the size "tremendous" to quote observers. The difference in size between the time it was first seen and last seen as a small ball going over the horizon was described as tremendous, at least 100 times larger.

b. Sighted at 0055Z on 10 February 1951 and remained visible for approximately 7 or 8 minutes.

c. Visually observered from MATS Navy C-54 #56501 of VR-1 Squadron based at Patuxent, Maryland, flying at 10,000 feet altitude, 182 knots air speed, 225 degrees true course.

d. Observing aircraft was at 4950N 5030W at the time of observation. Object appeared over the water's surface at approximately a 45 degree downward angle from the observing aircraft and was making good a true course of approximately 125 degrees. Upon approaching observing aircraft, it executed a sudden turn approximating 180 degrees and disappeared very rapidly over the horizon.

e. Object sighted by 5 crew members, listed below, of the above aircraft, who are all experienced North Atlantic fliers. Gander Traffic Control reports no other aircraft known to be in the vicinity at time of sighting. All 5 observers agree on facts as stated, but there has been no confirmation from other sources. Believe C-3 appropriate.

Lt Fred W. Kingdon - 173390 (First to see object)
Lt A. L. Jones - 391096
Lt G. E. Bethune - 299055
Lt N. G. S. Koger - 305875
Lt J. M. Mayer - 283836

f. Weather clear, visibility from 15 miles to unlimited, no other weather information available.

g. No unusual meteorological activity known to exist and having any influence on the sighting. This object could not have been a comet as the object was below and between the aircraft and ocean.

h. No physical evidence available.

i. No interception action taken.

2. The above information was forwared from this Headquarters to Headquarters, USAF by ** on 10 February 1951 by ******, NEAC E* **** *** ** 0215.


For the complete details see:
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/candir.htm