UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[christopherV]

lol. Nope, but i get the point.

 

[FlexGunship]

it's cool I'm so over it.

I'm going to be careful about how I word this, but do you think it's good that you're over it? Aren't you a little alarmed by have casually you dismiss our arguments?

I can't tell if you're actually feeling your statements being torn to shreds, or if you simply think "being right" is one of the many implied benefits of being ChristopherV.

 

[christopherV]

nope just tired of arguing..

 

[nismaratwork]

lol. Nope, but i get the point.

Well there's one theory debunked at least. Too bad it had to be mine...

 

[christopherV]

Well there's one theory debunked at least. Too bad it had to be mine...

You both argued admirably and no hard feeling on my part. I think that you both have made some valid points and I was forced to strongly defend my beliefs to my self.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't know why a few clear points have to be dragged out into pages of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, or exaggerations.

I think what separates peoples opinions on the matters, essentially boil down in most part to the difference between being prone to believing your own self vs believing a complete stranger, who is not even available for facial observation while making the claim. You can understand why it will be hard for a third party to convince someone, that they didn't see what they think they did, and it is also hard for a person to convince a third party you did see what they think they did. It's not personal, and it makes logical sense.

I agree that this particular sighting is not unbelievable. This type of sighting is actually very common, many people have describe seeing the same type of thing, for example the case in Arizona. Having, already, a body of observers with faces in many walks of life, documented claiming to see the same thing, one more faceless observer won't effect the scales.

To me, it doesn't seem like a stretch at all to assume such a craft is makable.

The unique contribution Chris has would only be his take on the discussion of what kind of technology might be able to reproduce the details of these observations, and PF doesn't allow this kind of speculation.

If it does exist, I would guess the size is due to either an engineering necessity, or that it is designed to transport things in and out of the battlefield.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The unique contribution Chris has would only be his take on the discussion of what kind of technology might be able to reproduce the details of these observations, and PF doesn't allow this kind of speculation.

The problem is that we have no credible evidence - published physics or engineering papers - suggesting such a technology is practical. So even if it is possible, the discussion would be purely speculative on two levels - that it could exist AND that it does. That is just bar talk.

 

[projektMayhem]

The thread seems to have been derailed... so I'll toss in my $0.02 :)

If we accept the reports in the book at face value, then it appears we have a conundrum.

Observations:

a) These craft exhibit maneuverability and general flight characteristics thought to be beyond our current capability
b) Many of these sightings take place over populated areas
c) Sightings have been going on for decades, with considerable consistency with respect to the flight characteristics (AFAIK)
d) Fighter jets have been scrambled to investigate on numerous occasions

If these things are true, what other rational explanation could there be, other than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis?

How likely is it that the government would
1) have craft in development for decades - starting from a time before modern computers (if you accept reports from post ww2 - even if you don't, computers in the 80's weren't exactly advanced)
2) be careless enough to test them over highly populated areas all over the world
3) be able to keep a lid on these programs for the length of their development
4) scramble jets to investigate their own black projects
5) find a way to keep pilots alive executing maneuvers that, by all accounts, should kill them?

It's a matter of deductive reasoning. And as S. Holmes would say...

Genuinely curious what others think of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we accept the reports in the book at face value,

This is what peaked my interest years ago. While we can't take any of this as scientific evidence, there are enough well-documented cases and compelling anecdotal reports to strongly suggest to me that we have genuine mystery, and probably several of them.

I don't jump to the ET hypothesis - I don't think that is justified - but I competely understand why many people do. Imo, one cannot in good faith, or as a matter of intellectual honesty, dismiss this all as hokum.

As for your question, the short answer is that, based on the information we have and the physics we know, it is far more likely that the government is behind this than it is that ET is visiting. However, that explanation is difficult to apply to all cases, and we can't set absolute limits on the possibility of visiting ETs. While it would seem to be highly unlikely that ET could have been here, it could also be a near certainty that we will be visited from time to time depending on, the absolute limits of physics and technology, which we may or may not recognize, the distribution of life in the galaxy, and the terms of the Drake equation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would note that "b", "Many of these sightings take place over populated areas," is self-fulfilling. After all, if a UFO flies over some tuna in the middle of an oceanic region, they're going to fail to report their sighting.

"A" is based on an assumption about the observational powers of... observers (not my best work). "C" is not quite true... in fact, the nature of sightings has changed in many ways to keep pace with our current view of technology. Once we saw cigar-shaped objects far more often... is this because we expected to see airships (literally or figuratively) before the concept of a disk being aerodynamic came to the fore?

"D"... is true. "D", and other reasons that Ivan mentioned are good reasons to keep this an open question, but this isn't something to be cracked by anything less than serious evidence.

Your analysis of a manmade craft seems spot on, and highlights reasons why Ivan is probably right that whatever people see is not ONE thing, whether that's a vehicle of terrestrial or ET origin, an optical illusion, weather, and all of the rest we've discussed previously.

Now the trick is to accept all of your observations and more, and NOT draw a conclusion. It hurts after a while, but keep at it and you'll be far more open to all sides of the debate.

 

[FlexGunship]

Now the trick is to accept all of your observations and more, and NOT draw a conclusion. It hurts after a while, but keep at it and you'll be far more open to all sides of the debate.

While it is true that you need to accept observational reports, more of less, at face value; it's not true that you can never establish a theme.

If you have 100 reports of flashing lights in the sky, and 98 of them turn out to be a helicopter. Wouldn't the most reasonable assumption be that the remaining 2 are also a helicopter? Oh, sure, they described the lights a little differently, and the witness said "I've seen helicopters, and that wasn't one!" But didn't the other 98 do the same?

I know that we really have a disagreement on this point. And I've argued (sometimes poorly) ad nauseum about it. It's a recurring theme that shows up over and over and over. Surely, every once in a while, something tremendous happens that really seems inexplicable. But why give it special credence? Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

 

[projektMayhem]

Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

Yes, however when you have observations by multiple people, from multiple locations, corroborated with radar measurements... then it is irrational to say that it is simply a helicopter, or anything else that doesn't actually match the description.

I am not convinced that any of the reports are of un-earthly origin. I simply believe it to be a rational explanation, given the evidence. Reports from the 80's (corroborated by radar measurements) indicate the craft could achieve velocities and accelerations that we today are incapable of (as far as we know). The fact that this trend continues today leads me to believe the ETH is reasonable - although far from a certain conclusion.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes, however when you have observations by multiple people, from multiple locations, corroborated with radar measurements... then it is irrational to say that it is simply a helicopter, or anything else that doesn't actually match the description.

I am not convinced that any of the reports are of un-earthly origin. I simply believe it to be a rational explanation, given the evidence. Reports from the 80's (corroborated by radar measurements) indicate the craft could achieve velocities and accelerations that we today are incapable of (as far as we know). The fact that this trend continues today leads me to believe the ETH is reasonable - although far from a certain conclusion.

Meh... it's hard to argue that. Your position is reasonable and easily defensible. I do, however, take issue with your use of the radar example. It has been shown repeatedly that radar reflections often behave unpredictably.

Example: Get a mirror, angle it so the sun hits it, and wiggle it back and fort. The light that shines off the mirror will easily attain velocities and accelerations that are impossible for any mirror! Good radar operators dismiss all of these things; others only dismiss most. And that's where the false sense of credibility comes from with radar reports.

 

[nismaratwork]

While it is true that you need to accept observational reports, more of less, at face value; it's not true that you can never establish a theme.

If you have 100 reports of flashing lights in the sky, and 98 of them turn out to be a helicopter. Wouldn't the most reasonable assumption be that the remaining 2 are also a helicopter? Oh, sure, they described the lights a little differently, and the witness said "I've seen helicopters, and that wasn't one!" But didn't the other 98 do the same?

I know that we really have a disagreement on this point. And I've argued (sometimes poorly) ad nauseum about it. It's a recurring theme that shows up over and over and over. Surely, every once in a while, something tremendous happens that really seems inexplicable. But why give it special credence? Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

True skepticism gives all phenomena equal footing in the face of evidence. Now, that cascade of evidence normally occurs rapidly and escalates, but doesn't for most UFO sightings. Example... a helicopter will often, if watched for a long time, NOT act in the stereotypically "flying light" manner. It's human, and absolutely unavoidable to start to note that every time you hear about flying lights, you produce a helo. I'd be like you, and am, and assume that these sightings are largely worth dismissing.

HOWEVER... that's cynicism, not skepticism. It's a small divide, but while I don't have a responsibility to examine every event of a given type, those I do should be given the same treatment as any other. You trust that the methodology used rapidly separates the 98% from the 2%, and looks for commonalities and themes int that 2. If you dismiss that 2%, it's PROBABLY sound, but it isn't skepticism or science.

 

[nismaratwork]

Meh... it's hard to argue that. Your position is reasonable and easily defensible. I do, however, take issue with your use of the radar example. It has been shown repeatedly that radar reflections often behave unpredictably.

Example: Get a mirror, angle it so the sun hits it, and wiggle it back and fort. The light that shines off the mirror will easily attain velocities and accelerations that are impossible for any mirror! Good radar operators dismiss all of these things; others only dismiss most. And that's where the false sense of credibility comes from with radar reports.

Agreed, and even with computer aid and muliple arrays, coordinated on an Aegis cruiser, radar ops is still an art like a sonar operator on a sub.

 

[jreelawg]

The thread seems to have been derailed... so I'll toss in my $0.02 :)

If we accept the reports in the book at face value, then it appears we have a conundrum.

Observations:

a) These craft exhibit maneuverability and general flight characteristics thought to be beyond our current capability
b) Many of these sightings take place over populated areas
c) Sightings have been going on for decades, with considerable consistency with respect to the flight characteristics (AFAIK)
d) Fighter jets have been scrambled to investigate on numerous occasions

If these things are true, what other rational explanation could there be, other than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis?

How likely is it that the government would
1) have craft in development for decades - starting from a time before modern computers (if you accept reports from post ww2 - even if you don't, computers in the 80's weren't exactly advanced)
2) be careless enough to test them over highly populated areas all over the world
3) be able to keep a lid on these programs for the length of their development
4) scramble jets to investigate their own black projects
5) find a way to keep pilots alive executing maneuvers that, by all accounts, should kill them?

It's a matter of deductive reasoning. And as S. Holmes would say...

Genuinely curious what others think of this.

The first reports I consider of value, started during WW2. In this general time period, there were tremendous advances in physics. While hard to believe, I consider it possible, that the hypothetical phenomena which would be exploited to make UFOs capable of moving how they are reported, could, if it exists at all, have been made during this era.

We have seen changes in design, which seams to work with this hypothesis. From bell shaped, to cigar shaped, and saucer shaped to triangle shaped. As impossible as it seams, if the technology is actually capable of reducing gravity, it would also reduce inertia, and would therefore make the exotic flight patterns survivable.

If you accept the flight characteristics of some reports and include them into the brainstorm, you will be forced consider the conclusion that they are either drones, remotely operated, or they are using anti-gravity or something exotic like it.

2) Why not, if they exist, maybe they have a use, and maybe that use sometimes means flying over rural areas. If they fly them, rural area or not, they are likely to be picked up on radar, and they seam to be able to handle the heat pretty well anyways.

3) Also, how would they keep the lid on having Alien visitors maintaining a steady presence? Shoot, we even have a few Astronauts who claim Aliens have a presence on Earth and the government is covering it up. Even that isn't enough to convince people, and rightfully so, because it doesn't matter who you are, if you don't have solid proof, then you haven't proven anything. Something this secret, would required strict monitoring of all people with access, and if something was stolen, it could be retrieved.

If I were to run such a project, that absolutely needed to be kept secret at all costs, I would only let very few people be exposed to the truth, and the people I would choose for this, would have a lot to lose, and they would be informed of what they would lose if they blow the lid. They would be on constant watch, and if they started slipping they would disappear. They would have tracking devices on them, they would have computer chips in their heads monitoring everything they say and hear 24/7, they would have self destruct devices implanted, nothing left to chance. Most engineers and factory workers would be compartmentalized and have no clue what they were involved in. People involved would have no official records of employment. If they tried to go public, they wouldn't appear to have the credentials anyways.

4) How would you know that people who order jets to be scrambled would know the truth?

 

[nismaratwork]

How did we get back to government programs and gravity-defying magic?

 

[FlexGunship]

HOWEVER... that's cynicism, not skepticism. It's a small divide, but while I don't have a responsibility to examine every event of a given type, those I do should be given the same treatment as any other. You trust that the methodology used rapidly separates the 98% from the 2%, and looks for commonalities and themes int that 2. If you dismiss that 2%, it's PROBABLY sound, but it isn't skepticism or science.

I can't flagrantly disagree. You're right about your delineation between cynicism and skepticism. HOWEVER... science is not blind to biases; it isn't forced to accept all claims as equally true.

If I claim that I have completely blown the lid off of relativity using nothing but meticulous and careful observation, why would you bother to believe me? You could analyze my claims ad infinitum, and no matter how belligerent I am, you are still likely to disagree, not simply maintain careful skepticism.

Relativity has known problems with it (clashes with quantum mechanics), but we don't throw the theory away simply because someone observes something slightly different! In fact, throwing out relativity because of my observations through a dirty window would be considered profoundly unscientific!

Helicopters, Venus, etc. (et al.) have incredible explanatory power when it comes to the UFO phenomenon. Yes, the "helicopter" explanation can often have problems with it (just like other accepted theories), but we shouldn't throw it away because the light doesn't move "the right way."

NOTE: Yes, I've engaged in hyperbole. You don't need to point it out. I understand that the "helicopter" theory (a stand-in for any rational/worldly UFO explanation) is not a formal theory.

 

[projektMayhem]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

You strike me as a smart person who hasn't read much of this thread. Much of what you're raising as new points have been exhaustively discussed already. I don't mean that as an insult, but I'd rather not go in circles.

FlexGunship: Yes, bias exist, but it's poison to science and skepticism. There's nothing that requires a person to apply their thinking to any given issue, but if you choose to engage with it, you should try and be sincere in your approach. If you claim to have "blown the lid off of relativity," I'd be extremely doubtful unless you had proof to trump near a century of Relativity's success.

I don't think you need to listen to every story, just that the ones you do hear are given the proper treatment. I feel pretty confident dismissing jreelawg's belief in gravity-modifying craft circa WWII, but if he brought some evidence to bear I'd hear him out.

I'm sorry Flex... if you want to dismiss that last % out of hand because of the rest, then maybe this isn't the kind of thing you want to discuss? I've seen nothing to support the grandiose claims of massive technological conspiracy, or ET visitation, so I believe that people are seeing something where there's nothing.

The irony of course is that your post is followed by one that makes all kinds of assumptions about "sightings", uses weasel words, (multiple studies... ok, cite them mayhem) and oddly rounded percentages. I read that, and from experience I can say that nothing new is brought to the table, just the usual conspiracy theories and "I want to believe" with a gloss of tech instead of magic or aliens. That still doesn't make me right, it just makes me convinced of a position based on experience. I also shouldn't be so blinded by the onslaught of crap information that I ignore the possibility of a diamond in the rough.

People DID see the F-117, and it WAS a fairly large black project. When someone sees a a satellite, a weather balloon, or helicopter... it's important to give them the chance to move from ingrained assumptions and discover what it was. After all they DID see something that most of us don't... just not aliens or (usually) test-planes. I'm not familiar with "dogfight over Tehran", but let's say there was some event that occurred beyond ambiguous radar and jets being scrambled. Is it better to leave it unexamined because the incredibly likely explanations are mundane, or to give it a go because it could be something interesting? If we assume that every light in the sky is a spaceship, we're getting nowhere, but the same is true if we assume that they're all weather/vehicular/optical-illusions.

I don't know what else to say except the need to strike a balance between recognizing that most phenomena, by definition, are mundane... and the fact that there is some odd stuff that happens. Mostly conspiracies are of a financial nature, or just simple crimes, but Lincoln was assassinated by a member of a conspiracy, as was Caesar for instance. Should we believe in "government death panels" because once in a few hundred years a cabal actually DOES something?... no. Should we be aware that you can be struck by lightning, hit by a meteorite, and attacked by an escaped zoo animal. There is no true justification for dismissal without consideration, unless you simply refuse to consider something at all (like the USSC refusing a case), which is fine, and human.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

I don't suppose that you can cite your statistics, or in any way support the position you've taken? You're expressing an opinion and dressing it as though it were a study you'd done. Come on...

 

[projektMayhem]

I don't suppose that you can cite your statistics, or in any way support the position you've taken? You're expressing an opinion and dressing it as though it were a study you'd done. Come on...

The most pertinent report to this thread is the COMETA report, as it was the catalyst for the author taking up her investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA

 

[jreelawg]

How did we get back to government programs and gravity-defying magic?

Projektmayhem offered the question of what it would mean if we accepted the reports at face value. I'm not saying anyone should accept the reports at face value. I think what P.M. was after, was to pin the ET hypothesis against the man made hypothesis under the hypothetical that we take UFO reports at face value.

P.M., argued that accepting the reports at face value, then the only rational explanation would be E.T. I'm just thinking about what it would mean to explain the reports at face value with an earthly explanation. It seams to me that in order to do this you might need to invoke gravity defying magic (if they were piloted by human beings).

 

[nismaratwork]

Projektmayhem offered the question of what it would mean if we accepted the reports at face value. I'm not saying anyone should accept the reports at face value. I think what P.M. was after, was to pin the ET hypothesis against the man made hypothesis under the hypothetical that we take UFO reports at face value.

P.M., argued that accepting the reports at face value, then the only rational explanation would be E.T. I'm just thinking about what it would mean to explain the reports at face value with an earthly explanation. It seams to me that in order to do this you might need to invoke gravity defying magic (if they were piloted by human beings).

PM can speak for himself, as you can for yourself. Your beliefs are clear, and frankly you seem to believe in what I charitably call magic.

projecktMayhem: That's not a citation or a source, just a vague gesture in the direction of one report. You've stated specific statistics... you can't cite them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, as indicated by nismar, please note that we cannot speculate about the existence of human technology, such as anti-gravity devices, to explain these events. We can only consider technologies known to exist.

 

[longitude]

Again, as indicated by nismar, please note that we cannot speculate about the existence of human technology, such as anti-gravity devices, to explain these events. We can only consider technologies known to exist.

Ivan is right. Also previoulsly presented possibilites about secret prototypes are evaulated in this book too. As title of the book implies - this book is not about some civilian laymen and usual missinterpretation about some far lights on the sky. Possibilites of cases are evaluated from the position of clearance. Officials involved were able to corelate military traffic and weather conditions before exclusion was done as this was their job (reason why secret prototypes as a usual suspect are not always the solution of the problem). Altough, the enormously big noise is present, as always in UFO domain, we are definately left with signal that deserves further research and study as this book suggest. All the usual generalizatons to negate UFO problem as always are very persuasive, but if you lower yourself down to actual data that this book represents (book contains not only the words from the author but it contains actual words and reports of the contributors of the book who wrote their own chapters) it is obvious that UFO problem is suffering for decades because of the impulsive pseudo-skepticism and impulsive UFO advocats. One of the best books ever written on this problem and thanks Ivan for starting this important thread.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Again, as indicated by nismar, please note that we cannot speculate about the existence of human technology, such as anti-gravity devices, to explain these events. We can only consider technologies known to exist.

ivan,

isnt part of this discussion about whether there are ets or not ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ivan is right. Also previoulsly presented possibilites about secret prototypes are evaulated in this book too. As title of the book implies - this book is not about some civilian laymen and usual missinterpretation about some far lights on the sky. Possibilites of cases are evaluated from the position of clearance. Officials involved were able to corelate military traffic and weather conditions before exclusion was done as this was their job (reason why secret prototypes as a usual suspect are not always the solution of the problem). Altough, the enormously big noise is present, as always in UFO domain, we are definately left with signal that deserves further research and study as this book suggest. All the usual generalizatons to negate UFO problem as always are very persuasive, but if you lower yourself down to actual data that this book represents (book contains not only the words from the author but it contains actual words and reports of the contributors of the book who wrote their own chapters) it is obvious that UFO problem is suffering for decades because of the impulsive pseudo-skepticism and impulsive UFO advocats. One of the best books ever written on this problem and thanks Ivan for starting this important thread.

Is there any indication that clearance equates to greater reliability? No? It's still a book of personal anecdotes, with just enough evidence to make it believable t hat these people aren't frauds, just fooled.

None of what you're saying is new to this thread, or discussion of the subject; in fact it's a step back. Science isn't about "lowering" or elevating yourself to match data: it's about the standards and collective opinion of every scientist who's part of their respect "association/organization", including those you'd expect in a grade-school chemistry class.

 

[longitude]

Is there any indication that clearance equates to greater reliability? No? It's still a book of personal anecdotes, with just enough evidence to make it believable t hat these people aren't frauds, just fooled.

None of what you're saying is new to this thread, or discussion of the subject; in fact it's a step back. Science isn't about "lowering" or elevating yourself to match data: it's about the standards and collective opinion of every scientist who's part of their respect "association/organization", including those you'd expect in a grade-school chemistry class.

Definitive distinction is present as we are not speaking here about anegdotes, Venus and weather ballons but investigations and official reports where possibilites are excluded one by one and where people were working collectivly on the problem as a mandate.

In fact this is a new voice and step forward, that is a message of the book and book's contributors, your line is something I have heard million times where noise is corellated. You can repeat your line again and again, but signal is clearly shown inside presented categories (and we are not speaking here about categories with inuficcient data and handy slogans ).

 

[nismaratwork]

Definitive distinction is present as we are not speaking here about anegdotes

This is an incorrect statement unless you have evidence to support these claims, stories told by generals are still stories. We've already covered this in the thread, which I suggest you peruse.

Venus and weather ballons but investigations and official reports where possibilites are excluded one by one and where people were working collectivly on the problem as a mandate.

Translation: You think this is the real deal, and those two are your go-to "Oh, those skeptics are so predictable, I know, Venus and Weather balloons out, and lots of anecdotes IN!". You can say things a lot, and in many different ways, but the standard of proof remains.

In fact this is a new voice

No, it's a collection of old voices recalling mostly second or third hand accounts.

and step forward

A step forward towards what?

that is a message of the book and book's contributors, your line is something I have heard million times where noise is corellated. You can repeat your line again and again, but signal is clearly shown inside presented categories (and we are not speaking here about categories with inuficcient data and handy slogans ).

Then show the data, and stop talking. On this site, you can't just say whatever pops into your head and pass it off as fact. For one, you're going to fool literally nobody, and for another you'll get moderated. You're new, and maybe you signed up without reading the rules... fair enough. I think you've mistaken this debate, forum, and the people involved for something else, and it's not going to end well for you here.

 

[longitude]

>This is an incorrect statement unless you have evidence to support these claims, stories >told by generals are still stories.

It is correct statement that is based on testimony, official reports and documents and not on still stories.

>Translation: You think this is the real deal,

No, I do not. I am talking there there is a signal present and different conclusions which are in direct dispute with the Condon report.

>and those two are your go-to "Oh, those skeptics are so predictable, I know, Venus and >Weather balloons out, and lots of anecdotes IN!".

As I said, I am not talking about anecdotes and civilian laymen that saw Venus and weather ballons.

>No, it's a collection of old voices recalling mostly second or third hand accounts.

Ok I will stop there. This comments obviously shows that you have not read the book. Read my two previous posts about author and contributors. Points about second and third accounts already debated and excluded.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ivan,

isnt part of this discussion about whether there are ets or not ?

No. We are considering the some of the best evidence for reported phenomena generally associated with the so-called UFO phenomenon. There is no scientific justification for leaping to the ET explanation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it's a collection of old voices recalling mostly second or third hand accounts..

That isn't true. The persons involved in the original events are often cited directly and still alive to confirm their account. In the case of the Iran event, for example, we have not only the original report, but also video interviews with the two pilots and the General involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In regards to the now deleted posts: Even official military reports are anecdotal evidence. In some cases it is officially acknowledged that RADAR data correlates with eyewitness accounts, but the original data is often difficult to impossible to obtain. In some cases physical trace evidence for the event was recovered, but nothing shown to be "extrarrestrial" has ever been recovered. In cases where high-than-normal radiation levels were documented by military personnel, we have unconfirmed trace evidence that can never be confirmed. Since the claim cannot be tested, that too is anecdotal evidence.

I think the point of contention was that military reports do logically carry much more weight than do random reports on the internet, for example, but they are still anecdotal evidence for the claims made. In many cases we have professionals whose job it was to monitor our skies acting in an official capacity. These reports clearly rise above the quality and reliability of typical public reports - we know the source of the report; we sometimes have specific, detailed information with corroborating evidence that is well documented. At the same time, these were all human beings capable of making errors. Whether one finds the evidence "compelling" [one way or the other] is subjective and dependent on how one weights the evidence. However, from a scientific point of view, it is all anecdotal evidence for the associated claims and stories. This point is closed to discussion.

Note that a few of these cases have been published in at least one scientific paper [IIRC, some of these cases have been referenced in a number of papers published in respectable scientific journals.]
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 58, pp. 43-50, 2005.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

 

[nismaratwork]

That isn't true. The persons involved in the original events are often cited directly and still alive to confirm their account. In the case of the Iran event, for example, we have not only the original report, but also video interviews with the two pilots and the General involved.

...True, but if Iran's (or ANY other nation's) airspace was violated, would anyone be foolish enough in the government or military to dissuade the widely held belief that it was a something "else"? I'd add, "sill alive to confirm" wold be tough to sell in a court, and regularly is; after all, witness accounts degrade rapidly and progressively with repeated recall. I'm supposed to believe that a General and 2 pilots should be somehow exempt from that principle, and when dealing with something difficult to identify?

I'd add, they're still MOSTLY third-hand, as is the case with the missile launch center issue.