What could be behind the reported UFO sightings in Texas?

[EnumaElish]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/14/ufo.sightings.ap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

These Texans' accounts are very similar to my own experience during one clear night in upstate New York, about 20 years ago. Principally, underbelly lights of "hovercraft" that looked like human technology, but acted like alien technology.

 

[JJbrigham]

I think the strongest case against visitation by super-intelligent aliens is that out of all the places on Earth they could buzz at low altitude, they pick A farming town in Stephenville, Texas.

Witness:
Sorrells said he has seen the object several times. He said he watched it through his rifle's telescopic lens and described it as very large and without seams, nuts or bolts.

A witness who can readly find his rifle sights, but no camera. You have to love this guy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the strongest case against visitation by super-intelligent aliens is that out of all the places on Earth they could buzz at low altitude, they pick A farming town in Stephenville, Texas.

That only suggests that they may not be intelligent.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Principally, underbelly lights of "hovercraft" that looked like human technology, but acted like alien technology.

How do you even know how "alien technology" acts?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's making all the major news sources now.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4142232&page=1
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/16/581991.aspx
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2008/01/stephenville_texas_ufo_poll_al_1.html?nav=rss_blog

 

[W3pcq]

I don't see why UFO must be alien technology. As if being other worldly give you magic powers that cannot be obtained on earth. If aliens can build it then it is possible. If it is possible then why can't we make it. Certainly there is a wealth of classified technology under the protection of the DOD.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A video has emerged that offers little insight.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618327.shtml

One objection often heard is that people see these things but don't get photos or videos of them. Well, they do - or at least allegedly they do - but just like most videos and photos that I've taken of dramatic scenes, esp at night, they are mostly useless.

 

[russ_watters]

It is unfortunate that most UFOs are seen at night...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are plenty of daylight sightings, but the photos often show only a fuzzy blur.

Assuming the credibility of the observers who report these things, the most dramatic sightings may only last a few seconds.

 

[EnumaElish]

How do you even know how "alien technology" acts?

Good question. I don't. By "A.T." I meant "unlike any human technology that the scholarly community of an elite upstate NYS university was aware of."

And I did take a couple of photos, which revealed "it was nighttime."

[I am remembering this "one at a time": I called the campus security. They said "we have been receiving similar calls from concerned people." The next issue of the campus journal reported the incident and quoted campus security and/or city police as saying "they were (military?) helicopters." ... To which I say "... Yah!" (It may also have appeared in local newspapers.) Not one person I talked to believed they were helicopters or any known type of aircraft. For one reason, they were utterly silent. And I don't mean "deep humming sound." I mean soundless. Another reason is, they followed a nonmechanical "fluid" motion. Third, they appeared to take zero acceleration time to reach a high velocity.]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...NBC News space analyst James Oberg is hardly a true believer. Over the years, he's been pilloried by ufologists for coming down too hard on claims of strange sightings. But in the Texas case, Oberg is reluctant to prejudge the witnesses. Rather, he merely says that observers should be alert if they have an opportunity to identify a strange sky object. Here's what he had to say in an e-mail: [continued]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/18/589552.aspx

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The U.S. military has owned up to having F-16 fighters in the air near Stephenville on the night that several residents reported unusual lights in the sky. But the correction issued Wednesday doesn't exactly turn UFOs into Identified Flying Objects.

Several dozen witnesses reported that they had seen unusual lights in the sky near Stephenville shortly after dusk Jan. 8. One sighting included a report that the lights were pursued by military jets. Military officials had repeatedly denied they had any flights in the area that night [continued]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/012408dntexufo.4f269ff6.html

Larry King will be doing a show about this tonight. I suspect that King is believer. If so he wouldn't be the first journalist to get hooked. Before his death, Peter Jennings was impressed with the weight of the evidence for something beyond mundane explanations for all of this. Some people here may have taken the time to watch his investigative report.

 

[Robert Powell]

Radar analysis of the Jan.8,2008 sightings in Stephenville, Texas.

I am new to this forum, but would appreciate any comments regarding the radar report that is located here: http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf"

Thanks,

Robert

 

[gareth]

Interesting report;

Personally I think it's good to see these reports dealt with in a more rigorous scientific manner.

In one of the conclusions you mention that the military might just disregard the freedom of information act etc., I wonder, if you called them up on a day when there was some readily identifiable aircraft in a similar airspace, what kind of answer would they give?

A sort of 'control' phonecall, that could be compared to other requests when there is something unidentified flying around.

Overall, it seems strange that they don't just say "we can't tell you" seems like that would be easier.

 

[Robert Powell]

Gareth, thank you for the reply.

You mentioned "...called them up on a day when there was some readily identifiable aircraft in a similar airspace, what kind of answer would they give?" I have thought about doing that, so as to prove that they ignore requests. Although in reality, they have already done that because there were unknown objects on radar without transponder beacons. So either the military didn't see them or they saw them and chose not to reply. Since the FAA radar tracked an object for an hour without a transponder, the military must have tracked it on radar also. They have a radar installation 50 miles away in Ft. Hood, they would have had radar on their ten F-16s, and the probable AWACS would also have had radar.

I agree with your last point...why don't they just say "we can't tell you". That seems like the easier option although if they say that then they admit there was something there. I've thought of four plausible possibilities regarding the radar sighting that was headed towards Crawford Ranch. (1) It was a military craft which was operating outside of a military zone and in violation of FAA protocols for a transponder. But why risk that when there are military operating zones nearby? (2) It was a fake radar image created by the AWACS as part of their military manuevers. This is a reasonable possibility except for the two witnesses who saw an actual object. (3) Ten F-16s and an AWACS failed to detect an unidentified aircraft with their radar. This one is hard to believe. (4) The military saw the object on radar, recognized it as unidentified, and chose not to pursue it. Again, hard to believe.
None of the four options I mentioned seem likely, but obviously one of them must be true or there is another option that I have overlooked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... Now some city officials want to know if a government exercise was being performed, why they weren't notified ahead of time.

"I want to know why public officials weren't notified of a large military operation in our area," said Stephenville City Councilmember Mark Murphy. He has filed a complaint with U. S. Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration, demanding answers. [continued]

http://cbs11tv.com/watercooler/Stephenville.UFO.Latest.2.811195.html

 

[mech]

I would like to quote Steven Hawkings:

"I am discounting reports of UFO's. Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdos?"

-Stephen Hawking: Asking big questions about the universe

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to quote Steven Hawkings:

"I am discounting reports of UFO's. Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdos?"

-Stephen Hawking: Asking big questions about the universe

Hate to say it, but that statement would essentially make Hawking a crackpot; or at least it is a crackpotty statement since it is either circular logic, or simply a false statement based on ignorance. Given such a public declaration, in either event I would expect a more informed opinon from someone who is so accomplished.

Note that the first case report in the UFO Napster [post 2 case 1] shows that his statement is not only false, but ridiculous.
http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00020.pdf

 

[mech]

Given such a public declaration, in either event I would expect a more informed opinion from someone who is so accomplished.

I agree with you that you would expect more, but I found the quote very amusing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Eh, there is more than enough of this sort of nonsense out there. In fact, it is in part what empowers the real crackpots in the UFO world. People who are interested in UFOs and know something about the subject, and people who have seen something unusual, hear statements like Hawking's, and since they know better, in their eyes, science itself is discredited and perceived as being untrustworthy.

Part of the trouble is that to those who are relatively unexposed, anyone who gives serious consideration to the subject of "UFOs" sounds nutty. No one wants to sound like a nut.

 

[hvs]

Considering Hawking's intelligence, I think he was making a joke.