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

[FlexGunship]

Of course, you can back this up with facts and official information?

Burden of proof isn't on me. I'm claiming nothing really weird happened. Can you prove any of that is wrong?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Burden of proof isn't on me. I'm claiming nothing really weird happened. Can you prove any of that is wrong?

You offered the explanation. The burden of proof is on you.

So again, do you have one bit of evidence to support your claims, or was your explanation nothing but your imagination at work?

 

[FlexGunship]

You offered the explanation. The burden of proof is on you.

So again, do you have one bit of evidence to support your claims, or was your explanation nothing but your imagination at work?

Okay, I retract it. Nothing happened. Do you disagree?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I retract it. Nothing happened. Do you disagree?

I read an official report that US intelligence rated as highly credible, that went all the way to the White House. That is all that I know for sure.

You will understand if your thirty seconds of thought given this, carry no weight or crediblity.

 

[FlexGunship]

I read an official report that US intelligence rated as highly credible, that went all the way to the White House. That is all that I know for sure.

You will understand if your thirty seconds of thought given this, carry no weight or crediblity.

Link?

1972 is when Iran started getting military hardware from the U.S. as apportioned by Nixon. 1976 was their first major shipment of anti-air hardware. This was just prior to the fall of the Shah.

I'm sure they were pros with it, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Link?

1972 is when Iran started getting military hardware from the U.S. as apportioned by Nixon. 1976 was their first major shipment of anti-air hardware. This was just prior to the fall of the Shah.

I'm sure they were pros with it, though.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't know anything about this most famous case. And apparently you don't know where to even find the information. Sorry again. It can be found at the National Security Agency.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't know anything about this most famous case. And apparently you don't know where to even find the information. Sorry again. It can be found at the National Security Agency.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

Sorry, I had assumed you had something better. Did you read it? The very first line of the text is: "This report forwards information concerning..." It doesn't even offer independent corroboration. It also ends with a disclosure of where the information came from "information within this report was obtained from a source in conversation with a sub-source, and [one of the pilots]." Would an insurance company even take that kind of information on a minor vehicle accident?

Also, I'm sorry if I seem so disrespectful, it's just that this isn't even a good UFO case. I don't know why everyone harps on it so much. There's no evidence left over, just the claims of some people.

EDIT: and I should clarify something. Maybe I'm being overly cautious in accepting evidence, but simply writing down a testimony doesn't really count as evidence. It's still just someone saying what they thought happened. Putting it in writing and on letterhead doesn't really increase the authenticity.

 

[jreelawg]

You don't have to be sure of something to investigate it. If a girl walked into a police station and said she had been beaten by her husband a month ago, and he is threatening to kill her if she tells. She has no bruises left over by this time. Do you investigate?

In the case of UFO's you can take the stance that you are either 100% sure something exotic happened, or 100% sure nothing exotic happened. And require a list of evidence next to impossible to obtain regardless of the truth. Which is fine for your personal belief system. But if you are a police officer, and apply this type of logic to the abused woman example, blood is going to be on your hands.

When you have a long list of eye witness accounts. You can make a decision to either decide they are lying, hallucinated, or are telling the truth. Or you can just consider all 3 possible without making up your mind.

 

[FlexGunship]

You don't have to be sure of something to investigate it. If a girl walked into a police station and said she had been beaten by her husband a month ago, and he is threatening to kill her if she tells. She has no bruises left over by this time. Do you investigate?

Eh, not quite the same. This is a reasonable event that happens often (sadly). There are no extraordinary claims being made. Given that there hasn't really been any proof of alien's visiting Earth, I think it's okay to be skeptical of every claim.

EDIT: I removed a line for the purpose of clarity.

 

[FlexGunship]

In the case of UFO's wether it is a secret human made craft, or ET craft, by the standards some people set, it would next to impossible to confirm anything exotic ever happened. By these standards where, you either are 100% sure something exotic happened, or 100% nothing exotic happened.

I disagree. Maybe by a minority of people, but I know I allow for incredible things to happen. It's just that some people make claims that are so exotic on the basis of not-much that it's really difficult to take serious in an intellectually-honest manner.

Realistically, light refracting off of a temperature inversion is pretty exotic! But it's much less exotic than alien visitation.

 

[jreelawg]

The project was secretive, but the technology wasn't. The public knew about the concept of "splitting" the atom. Stealth technology was talked about earnestly as soon as radar was invented.

To simply say: "we don't know what technology exists" is a personal limitation. I have a great idea of what technology exists. I don't understand it all, but I can usually identify it. The Large Hadron Collider is a good example. That's what real cutting-edge technology looks like.

My point was that even secret military test planes (for which there is plenty of precedent) are built from reality. They aren't comprised of dream-parts. Why would we assume that, all of a sudden, the military has access to something entirely incomprehensible? If you see a craft make a high speed perfect 90-degree turn (for example), that should be an instant indication that you're not really seeing an aircraft. You can just remove that idea from your mind an start looking for other explanations.

That is a personal unsubstantiated and, in my opinion ridiculous belief. It's like your saying if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

I can say that there are very strict measures taken to keep military secrets/technological secrets held by the government. Sure the companies which produce secret equipment or what not, are private, however they are in contract with government agencies who provide the funding. Anything discovered, or invented, under contract with the government can be government property, and there are strict laws which enforce this.

Aside from this, there is a history of the government recruiting the nations best physicists, and uniting them towards a common military cause. Some of the best minds of the 20th century had worked for the military under extremely strict measures. The very structure of scientific workings in this country had been formed specifically with the ability to keep technological secrets as a priority.

On top of this, the structure works on a need to know basis. So even the vast majority of people who work at, say a secret government research facility, may not know what exactly they are developing, how it works, or even confirmation something was made of it. Only a select few recruited scientific minds overseeing projects may know the full scope, and consequences could be very bad if contracts are violated.

You can't expect mainstream physicists to know the full extent of possible technology based on general knowledge of mainstream physics theories. It actually takes research to really make use of what we know. It is not unthinkable as well, that research may yield results which would not have been imagined through knowledge of theory or mathematics. It may be the case that results of exotic research may be usable in the creation of technology, while the underlying physical theory behind the phenomena remains unexplained.

When it comes to things of certain natures, research can be expensive. You cannot expect a private company to develop something of certain exotic natures except under the condition that they intend to make money off of it which requires selling it to a government. Under these circumstances, law may inhibit public disclosure of the research, or discoveries, which are behind the technology.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is a personal unsubstantiated and, in my opinion ridiculous belief. It's like your saying if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

I can say that their are very strict measures taken to keep military secrets/technological secrets held by the government. Sure the companies which produce secret equipment or what not, are private, however they are in contract with government agencies who provide the funding. Anything discovered, or invented, under contract with the government can be government property, and there are strict laws which enforce this.

Aside from this, their is a history of the government recruiting the nations best physicists, and uniting them towards a common military cause. Some of the best minds of the 20th century had worked for the military under the extremely strict measures. The very structure of scientific workings in this country had been formed specifically with the ability to keep technological secrets as a priority.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we were discussing incremental advances in technology. And I wasn't saying that "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." I'm saying that we could probably use a rule of "implied secret advancement."

Secret_military_tech = current_known_tech + 10%

The military isn't going to suddenly invent anti-gravity (for example).

 

[jreelawg]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we were discussing incremental advances in technology. And I wasn't saying that "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." I'm saying that we could probably use a rule of "implied secret advancement."

Secret_military_tech = current_known_tech + 10%

The military isn't going to suddenly invent anti-gravity (for example).

"The Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) was an agency of the United States federal government created to coordinate scientific research for military purposes during World War II. Arrangements were made for its creation during May 1941, and it was created formally by Executive Order 8807 on June 28, 1941. It superseded the work of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), was given almost unlimited access to funding and resources, and was directed by Vannevar Bush, who reported only to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

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

"At one time, two-thirds of all the nation’s physicists were working under Bush’s direction."

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

A lot of money, and the cooperation of many of the best scientific minds in the country can speed up the process a little.

I would also point out that in the realm of secret research, how do you know how suddenly something may have been invented? The underlying phenomena could have been discovered long ago, and the development of technology making use of it could have gone on in secret for years.

Add to this the fact that the boom of technology in recent history has been extremely rapid.

 

[FlexGunship]

jreelawg, I think we're going to have to disagree here. In my personal experience, physical discoveries lead to theories in 5 years, development in 10 years, limited deployment in 20, and practical use in 50.

Perhaps someday evidence will show that your anti-gravity generator has been around for a while, but I don't think blinking and moving lights are a good way to come to the conclusion that it exists now.

 

[FlexGunship]

You experienced sleep paralysis. I agree with you, it's terrifying. When I was paralyzed the ceiling of my room turned into a giant head and was yelling at me. This was also when I was a kid, but it was so vivid I remember it even today. Your experience was VERY real, Cave-Man, but your interpretation of it might be a over-dramatic. (Please don't take that as disrespectful.)

If you're going to go by the "number" of unexplained things, then it doesn't make much sense to start with aliens. Perhaps angels, or secret military craft? Maybe a new species of bioluminescent bird?

Non-terrestrial isotope ratios can be attributed to more mundane things. Example: meteorites. In your video, the man is described as "having a passion for the paranormal." This will skew any results to begin with.

Lastly, it's too easy to just "say" all of this stuff. Where's the fragment and why isn't it in labs right now? Isn't this the evidence everyone is looking for? Let's see it! Pull it out! Let's test it!

EDIT: Roger Leir is an idiot, by the way. He's a foot doctor. Sorry if that's too much opinion and not enough fact, but he makes a living off of performing unnecessary surgery by removing fatty tissue and claiming that it's alien tracking devices (disregard that, can't find a link to back it up... but it's true). He then tells us that the material gets hotter than its surrounding environment. Dip it in tea water and it conducts heat? That's not surprising. He seems to insinuate it's too hot to explain.

Lastly, he says things like "supposed motorcycle accident." The guy died in a motorcycle accident! It happens! How can you take him seriously?

 

[jreelawg]

jreelawg, I think we're going to have to disagree here. In my personal experience, physical discoveries lead to theories in 5 years, development in 10 years, limited deployment in 20, and practical use in 50.

Perhaps someday evidence will show that your anti-gravity generator has been around for a while, but I don't think blinking and moving lights are a good way to come to the conclusion that it exists now.

I agree with everything you say. In your experience... But I would not limit what I find possible to, what you think based on your experience. The point I made ultimately, is that you, or I or anyone else doesn't know everything, and enough credible evidence does not exist within the realm of your or my experiences to justify coming to such absolute convictions about what does or does not exist.

I also have not used blinking or moving lights to come to conclusions that anti-gravity technology exists. I simply never came to the conclusion that exotic technology perhaps "anti-gravity" can't exist. I actually am inclined to doubt it, I just can't cross it off of my list because from my perspective something like that might exist for all I know.

So basically I am saying that I have not yet become decisive on the issue of wether or not a flying object could make sudden 90 degree turns at high speed, hover without making noise etc.

 

[jreelawg]

Well you are clearly ignoring the fact that it has ALREADY been tested by as reputable labs as you could ask for and the only thing you can say is that maybe it was made up and you could, like i said, easily just call up those labs and ask for a copy of the results.

Also NO you cannot explain that through mundane things, show me a meteorite that contains a sample that large of 99.9% pure silicon then you might have some credibility otherwise you are just trying too hard to explain something this is OBVIOUSLY proof of something that is manufactured in another solar system, simple as that.

Nobody is going to collect meteorites and process them just to come up with a sample like that, also how could they, 99.9% pure would require manufacturing techniques that are either not available today or would be so expensive that info of it would be available.

Also pure silicon has some pretty strange properties (like explained in that video thermal conductivity is greatly increased with a highly pure silicon)

Seems to me people are bending over backwards to try and disprove something like this, you could have a little green dude land a craft in your back yard and come shoot your dog with a ray gun and you would still be denying alien life.

I suggest you go take a look at google sky then come back and tell me we are the only multicellular life in galaxy capable of producing exponential technological advancement.

I just want to point out that we cannot be 100% certain. For example, if interstellar travel, is achievable then it is possible man has this technology. If man has this technology, they could have went to another solar system to manufacture something. A little green creature with a ray gun, could be a man made, alien looking robot, or genetically engineered creature, and I see no reason why the ray gun would necessarily imply alien.

 

[alt]

Who said anything about alien spacecraft s?



Of course, you can back this up with facts and official information? Or are you just making nonsensical claims that have no supporting evidence?

Yours is precisely the same logic that leads people to leap to the conclusion that ET is here - it is more emotion than logic. Beyond that, you have no basis for your claims, whereas the true believers can at least point to anecdotal evidence.

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation ?

I (and I guess many others) are genuinely interested to hear what you think. No alien spacecraft s, no hallucinations .. do you then support the 'secret military craft' theory ? Or what ?

 

[FlexGunship]

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation ?

I guess that's what I was waiting for.

 

[Hattattack]

I guess that's what I was waiting for.

Give him a bit. I am sure he has irons in the fire in all directions... Ivan does not typically disappoint.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I had assumed you had something better. Did you read it? The very first line of the text is: "This report forwards information concerning..." It doesn't even offer independent corroboration. It also ends with a disclosure of where the information came from "information within this report was obtained from a source in conversation with a sub-source, and [one of the pilots]." Would an insurance company even take that kind of information on a minor vehicle accident?.

So then your position is that while US intel rated the report as highly credible, it isn't, according to you? Nevermind that the pilots and general involved still speak publically about their experience.

I'm sorry, but I have an official document that says otherwise. Unless you can produce some evidence that justifies downgrading the intelligence rating, your comments are nothing but wild speculation over thirty years after the fact. If your logic justifies rejecting military intelligence for yours, assuming that you have zero training in such matters, and certainly no direct exposure or experience, then how do you justify your position?

What qualifies you as an expert?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation?

No.

I do know the report was rated as highly credible and has stood the test of time. It is also reasonable to assume that US intelligence did not think there was any chance that this was a military craft - some secret Soviet or Chinese aircraft - or, by definition, the report wouldn't have been declassified six years later. It also seems clear that neither we or the Soviets had any technology consistent with that described. If it was something of ours, then again, why was the report declassified? This would still be highly classified information today.

One can reject the report based on faith, if that makes one feel better, but it is not logically justified according the best evidence we have. Nor are any conclusions justified otherwise. It is a UFO report. If I could explain it away to my own satisfaction, I wouldn't be interested.

I have some guesses about the potential for a natural phenomenon that might explain some military reports, but is also wild speculation that cannot be supported with any good evidence at this time. Nor could this explain the entirety of the Iran report.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course, the real point has been missed. If the report is in any way accurate, this wasn't a balloon, or Venus, or swamp gas from the Mississippi Delta. While one might reject the report through faith [having no direct knowledge of the events], it shows how silly the claims from the skeptics can be. The UFO enigma has persisted for over 60 years now [or 6000 years, depending on how we choose to define things] because we do find compelling, seemingly inexplicable reports, from time to time, that involve highly credible witnesses; and sometimes a good number of them. Keep in mind also that officially, this was tracked by several different RADAR systems.

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know".

Flexgunship, your answers seem to be all over the board. First you represented the whole UFO businesses as trivial. When confronted with a real case - as an example that the interesting cases are not trivial - first you claimed the pilot was chasing Venus and then lied about his encounter [or some wild idea like that]. Then you claimed it never happened. Then you challenged the authenticity of my reference to the report, and then rejected its conclusions based on your own expert analysis...and all within a few posts! I find the UFO enigma to be more consistent than your position on this!

 

[mugaliens]

Hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes are proven to explain at least some UFO cases. ETs/Aliens have been proven to explain no cases so far.

I concur, though I would ratchet that up a few notches to say "most, if not all."

I'll give the folks here one such event, as happened to myself. I'd just moved to Las Vegas, and was driving just after sunset along Craig Rd., when I saw a flying saucer lift off the ground in the distance! Or at least that's what it looked like, and had me fooled for 10 to 15 seconds until I got a better look at it.

Turns out it was one of the blimps based at North Las Vegas airport. In addition to giving aerial tours of downtown, they also carry camera crews for various events. One of the blimps had lifted off at a steep angle, and was backlit by the glow in the evening sky, so it was totally dark, and given the cigar shape, looked exactly like a "flying saucer" seen on edge.

As a military aviator with thousands of hours, I never jumped to the conclusion it was ET. I simply didn't know what in the world I was looking at and pulled over to the side of the road until I could figure out what it was I was looking at.

Turns out blimps were a regular feature at that airport, a fact of which I wasn't aware when I moved there.

(shrugs)

I felt a touch sheepish at not being able to identify it within a few seconds, but oh well - you live and you learn.

What I learned is that things aren't always as they appear. Just because we can't explain something we or others see doesn't mean they're unexplainable. Several "rapidly-darting" UFOs available on YouTube, for example, have been explained as nothing more than the aftereffect of image stabilzation software, as trained on a point source of light, which simply shifted as it reached the boundary of the inner square boundary of the out square visual field.

The reason I linked to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"[/I].

Armed with this info, I went looking for any sort of tell-tale of such activity immediately preceeding the acceleration of the "UFO" in the video.

Well, I found it, at 0:22 into the video, a brief, one-frame illumination (not the circle added later at 0:32) directly behind the aircraft, followed by a few seconds of slight variation in the background immediately behind it, precisely what one might expect from a heat plume.

As with virtually 99.99% of all UFO videos, the poor quality of the film makes it difficult, though fortunately not impossible, to see these effects.

I also ran a few rough acceleration equations and if it was the 107'5" SR-71, the video's claimed "10 second Mach 1 to Mach 3" acceleration is totally out to lunch. At best I came up with about 100 kts acceleration in about 6 seconds, and that's both based on what measurements I could make from the video, as well as being commensurate with what's simply seen on the video and what I see in real life.

Thus, my conclusion is that it's just widly exaggerated statements by UFO-afficionados hiding behind voice and video obfuscation techniques using voice morphing, dark rooms, and grainy film as a means of eliciting some sort of reverse cloak and dagger "authenticity" vs any genuine, open, honest look at the original video, which was probably far more clear and detailed than what's plastered all over the Internet.

Well, for what it's worth, that's my take on it.

 

[Andre]

I have no idea what happened there but I wanted to point to something.

We read in the narration in wikipedia:

The second F-4 pilot, General Parviz Jafari, said that after trying to fire a missile and failing, they feared for their lives and tried to eject, but the eject button also malfunctioned.[7]

claimed source:"Good (1986) p290" which is likely "Timothy Good, Above Top Secret, 1988, William Morrow and Co., ISBN 978-0688092023"

The problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any http://www.martin-baker.com/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--1-to-Mk--9.aspx.

more details

It has several handles to pull with different functions and the mechanisms are entirely mechanical in nature, there is no electricity involved.

The point is that an ejection seat failure cannot logically be attributed to anything that causes electronic failure. But the narration does not attempt to take away a possible suggestion in that direction.

Ejection seats have been known to fail due to safety pin still installed, inproper strap in of the pilot, or simply finger trouble, pulling wrong handles due to regression in a state of high stress; for instance with drill memories for other types of seats.

Hence the failure of the ejection seat cannot normally be attributed to an external cause

 

[mugaliens]

The problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any Martin Baker seat version, which were in all F4.

Lol, I'm glad you caught this. :) The last time I saw an "eject button" in real life was in my DVD player. Of course there's one in James Bond's Aston Martin, as well, circa the mid-60s, but...

In every USAF aircraft I ever flew which had an ejection system, it was either in the form of ejection handles (located at the end of either armrest and either one would work, but you'd better have your other arm in a safe place or you might loose it), or a trigger ring, also operable by one hand. I flew a couple other systems where one's "ejection system" was manual bailout via the nearest open hatch, but that's neither here nor there.

Ejection seats have been known to fail due to safety pin still installed, inproper strap in of the pilot, or simply finger trouble, pulling wrong handles due to regression in a state of high stress; for instance with drill memories for other types of seats.

Hence the failure of the ejection seat cannot normally be attributed to an external cause

Improper strap-in of the pilot may cause a malfunction in the overall safe operation of the ejection seat, but not a failure of the firing mechanism. So long as the safety pins are pulled, the seat will fire, whether the pilot is strapped in or not. Admittedly my experience in only with three different seats, but I recall several stories from life support describing how seats fired due to either improper life support procedures or operator procedures.

Ejection seat safety inspection was a critical part of our checklist. If the seat didn't check out, we didn't fly. All the seats I ever flew were highly reliable. The trigger mechanism fired a simply, highly-reliable pyrotechnic charge which rapid found its way through the system. There were several interlocks, but when the pins were removed, the interlocks were removed, as well. These interlocks included both safety interlocks to prevent inadvertent firing of the main seat ejection charge (equivalent to a stick of dynamite for the older seats or an even more powerful rocket motor for the newer ones), as well as physical interlocks to allow for the seat being allowed to be removed prior to the firing of the main charge.

From what I recall, it involved three cases:

1. The sequence could not be initiated without a rather decisive pull on the triggers/ring by the occupant.

2. The sequence first progressed until all of the physical pin locations had allowed the system to know that it was safe to fire.

3. The sequence then progressed until all of the physical interlocks locking the seat in place had been removed by the firing sequence.

4. The firing charge resulted in the seat's main ejection charge being ignited.

Seemingly complex? Yes. But remarkably simple. There were conflicting goals: 1) Never allow any malfunction of the seat to initiate an ejection, even if a bullet struck a critical node. 2) Never prevent the ejection sequence from taking place if the operator (occupant) pulled the handles/ring.

Obviously these two goals can, at times, be in conflict, so if that had ever happened, we had training out the, er, well, backside of our brains, for something called "manual bailout," which involved releasing a couple of clips hold us to the seat, allowing ourselves and our parachutes to race to the nearest open hole, and dive out in accordance with prescribed procedures. Not as safe or as assured as an ejection, but it's been used with decent results in years past.

How in the world do I know all of this? For the same reason I instantly recognized Andre's comment about "the problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any Martin Baker seat version, which were in all F4."

Been there, done that. Questions? I'm not going to supply unit information, so please don't ask.

But can we please stop all of this gross-ill-informed (what appears to me to be wild-*** speculation) regarding x, y, z, and the other thing but which actually has little (usually no) basis in reality?

Seriously, folks, if we're going to talk about UFOs, let's drop the ridiculously regenerated Internet crap and focus on something more substantial.

Personally, I don't believe they exist, for a variety of reasons, the least of which is, like insects, they'd either be everywhere, or if they couldn't exist, they'd be nowhere. Call it Mug's Razor, until we have a better term.

I do believe, however, they could exist. I just don't think they would ever be so stupid as to allow themselves to be seen! If they ever did exist, I think they'd be totally behind the scenes.

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any ET existence on Earth, save for a few bacteria which may (by no means certain) have bounced back and forth to and from Mars in meteor impacts.

 

[FlexGunship]

So then your position is that while US intel rated the report as highly credible, it isn't, according to you?

Firstly, this is not an intelligence report. If you think it is, that means you've never seen an intelligence report. This is a memo that forwards information. In the same way that you might forward an e-mail. It doesn't mean the person forwarding it has somehow verified the content. This happens routinely.

Besides, even if this was an intel report, US intelligence isn't exactly the be-all/end-all of foreign intelligence. Still waiting for those Iraqi WMDs.

It is also reasonable to assume that US intelligence did not think there was any chance that this was a military craft - some secret Soviet or Chinese aircraft - or, by definition, the report wouldn't have been declassified six years later. It also seems clear that neither we or the Soviets had any technology consistent with that described.

I don't understand why it's "reasonable to assume" any of this stuff. Furthermore, you're operating on the assumption that the report is still about a single phenomenon.

One can reject the report based on faith, if that makes one feel better, but it is not logically justified according the best evidence we have. Nor are any conclusions justified otherwise. It is a UFO report. If I could explain it away to my own satisfaction, I wouldn't be interested.

You mean accept it base don faith? History has shown that there has always been a reasonable explanation (usually coincidence of unlikely or unfamiliar events), why would we take it on faith that this is any different?

Flexgunship, your answers seem to be all over the board. First you represented the whole UFO businesses as trivial. When confronted with a real case - as an example that the interesting cases are not trivial - first you claimed the pilot was chasing Venus and then lied about his encounter [or some wild idea like that]. Then you claimed it never happened. Then you challenged the authenticity of my reference to the report, and then rejected its conclusions based on your own expert analysis...and all within a few posts! I find the UFO enigma to be more consistent than your position on this!

Well you're artificially lumping a series of experiences together with a body of shoddy evidence and calling it a "UFO story". Deal with it once piece at a time. The UFO phenomenon is most definitely trivial (it is the very definition of trivial), but the human experience that it carries with it is not.

My position is simple, it just manifests itself in many ways: there is not now, and never has been evidence to support the idea that UFOs are anything but hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes. Reports are fueled by an uneducated public armed with magical thinking and an unwillingness to accept their own fallibility.

 

[FlexGunship]

I do believe, however, they could exist. I just don't think they would ever be so stupid as to allow themselves to be seen! If they ever did exist, I think they'd be totally behind the scenes.

You ignore the most plausible scenario: aliens might be out there, but just too far away to get to us.

Right now, there is no human research that suggests hat practical superluminal travel is possible. There are hypotheses, conjectures, and math supporting the concept, but, unlike electricity, there's no research that suggests it's a physical possibility.

Couple this fact with the incredible distances involved in interplanetary travel, and there's a perfectly good explanation for why we don't see aliens here around Earth. It's the exact same reason that aliens are never likely to see humans around their planets.

 

[FlexGunship]

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any ET existence on Earth, save for a few bacteria which may (by no means certain) have bounced back and forth to and from Mars in meteor impacts.

Sadly, I think the research on this hasn't yielded anything in a long time. The problem is that you have to avoid wishful thinking, and everyone would love to find out that there was once life on Mars.

The truth is, however, that it would take mountains of evidence to show that the little "nano-tubes" are really bacterial fossils, but it would only take one piece of information to ruin the whole thing. "Bacterial life on Mars" is an amazing and extraordinary claim, I'm saddened by the fact that it looks like that meteorite isn't extraordinary enough to constitute viable evidence.

Maybe we'll find better evidence soon!

 

[Andre]

Improper strap-in of the pilot may cause a malfunction in the overall safe operation of the ejection seat, but not a failure of the firing mechanism. So long as the safety pins are pulled, the seat will fire, whether the pilot is strapped in or not.

True, but I know of two fatalities in my environment due to that problem, so I was a bit biased to add it.

Ejection seat safety inspection was a critical part of our checklist. If the seat didn't check out, we didn't fly.

Post QRA scramble checklist (especially for a life 'Alpha scramble'), after getting airborne within the two minutes, be sure to finish strap in, recheck this, that and that and seat - "armed..." - OOPS

Edit: And those guys were on an 'alpha scramble'

But can we please stop all of this gross-ill-informed (what appears to me to be wild-*** speculation) regarding x, y, z, and the other thing but which actually has little (usually no) basis in reality?

The first essence of the 'ejection button' is accuracy of reporting and a hue of inserting wrong suggestions. Could it be that there more problems with that?

The second essence is that the failure of the ejection could have been pilot error, this would indicate that this particular pilot likely made an error in that stress situation in the first place. Now can it be excluded that he made more errors?