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

[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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

Ivan, I think you're right in saying that this is the "point of contention." However, I'd like to point to a different reason why the exact same thing can still be our point of contention.

I accept the premise that "not all reports are created equally." They come from different sources under very different circumstances. But, I deny the premise that "not all reporters were created equally."

I don't mean that in a shallow "we all see green as green" way. I mean that we are all biased by our own observations; we think that because we are seeing it, it must be the exception to the rule. The problem with military reports is that these are people who are trained ad nauseum to be confident in their observations. These are precisely the people most equipped to deal us a bad hand. Furthermore, even if they realize the error in their reporting, it would severely compromise their credibility if they were to admit it. It's a perfect storm of social and cognitive biases.

Statistics suggest that there should be tons of alien encounter stories, and in practice there are tons of alien encounter stories. This is known as Fermi's-Lack-of-a-Paradox.​

(Source: http://xkcd.com/718/)

(Note: Please pardon the fact that this comic is titled "The Flake Equation." It comes across as an insult, and I don't mean it as such. I just like the equation; I didn't add the title myself.)

 

[nismaratwork]

Ivan, I think you're right in saying that this is the "point of contention." However, I'd like to point to a different reason why the exact same thing can still be our point of contention.

I accept the premise that "not all reports are created equally." They come from different sources under very different circumstances. But, I deny the premise that "not all reporters were created equally."

I don't mean that in a shallow "we all see green as green" way. I mean that we are all biased by our own observations; we think that because we are seeing it, it must be the exception to the rule. The problem with military reports is that these are people who are trained ad nauseum to be confident in their observations. These are precisely the people most equipped to deal us a bad hand. Furthermore, even if they realize the error in their reporting, it would severely compromise their credibility if they were to admit it. It's a perfect storm of social and cognitive biases.

Statistics suggest that there should be tons of alien encounter stories, and in practice there are tons of alien encounter stories. This is known as Fermi's-Lack-of-a-Paradox.​

(Source: http://xkcd.com/718/)

(Note: Please pardon the fact that this comic is titled "The Flake Equation." It comes across as an insult, and I don't mean it as such. I just like the equation; I didn't add the title myself.)

I sent that 'equation' to my surviving great-aunt, who has an amazing sense of humor. I got this reply: "I wet myself!".

That's pretty good man!

I think it's human nature to feel assured that WE at least, or THEY, aren't subject to the same flaws in human observation and interpretation than 'WE' are. It seems the collective we also likes to ignore that the USA has 2 things:

1.) An unusually high incidence of pilots reporting UFO sightings!
2.) The only air-force that not only allows, but practically mandates the use of dextroamphetamine ("go pills"... right?).

So, our under-rested pilots who are on amphetamines (good for a fight, bad for UFO spotting!) and often entering or leaving a combat theater see things. What. A. Shock. It's a testament to the quality of training in the air force, and the controls on the use of "go pills", that so few pilots have reported seeing things.

As for RADAR operators... they represent a minority of the population who spends their work-day scanning a given region for SOMETHING. UFOs, on RADAR isn't unusual... is that a vulture or an eagle... well, it's not a threat and it doesn't appear to act in a physically impossible manner, so nothing. Like cold reading, the entire concept is rigged to remember and emphasize supposed hits, while ignoring a galaxy of misses. A SONAR operator would laugh!... of course the job of an operator is to screen for a signal in noise.

Too bad humans STINK at that... where there's noise we hear signals.

 

[FlexGunship]

Like cold reading, the entire concept is rigged to remember and emphasize supposed hits, while ignoring a galaxy of misses. A SONAR operator would laugh!... of course the job of an operator is to screen for a signal in noise.

Not all sonar operators would laugh.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien...fied-submerged-objects-usos-2.html#post365346

 

[nismaratwork]

Not all sonar operators would laugh.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien...fied-submerged-objects-usos-2.html#post365346

Wow... I just had a true face-palm moment there. No other description... face-in-hand... big sigh.

I shall rephrase for those sonar operators who are being hunted by water-aliens (aka sea life): All SONAR operators you'd actually WANT with you for 3+ months under enough water to crush you like a bug under a ship-plate.


We've BARELY mapped the life in the depths of the ocean some of which is BIG... and this is what we get?! @&@*^^!@*#!. Oh man... let me rephrase again: All SONAR operators not currently undergoing ECT for catatonic psychosis...

 

[FlexGunship]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

This literally popped into my head upon reading your post; I have no excuse.

"True dat!"

Hooo boy... more sleep old boy... must get more sleep.

 

[FlexGunship]

"True dat!"

Hooo boy... more sleep old boy... must get more sleep.

Werd. Muh homez be lackin' Z's like an amatuer Scrabble game.

 

[nismaratwork]

Werd. Muh homez be lackin' Z's like an amatuer Scrabble game.

Yeah... I really have no excuse.

 

[alt]

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

Ah So !

And certainly, no one could be excluded from that - least of all you and Nismaratwork.

You know, I've often observed that the more one is convinced of some inalieable truth, the more likely they are to have some degree of bias and and error.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah So !

And certainly, no one could be excluded from that - least of all you and Nismaratwork.

You know, I've often observed that the more one is convinced of some inalieable truth, the more likely they are to have some degree of bias and and error.

I'm sorry... did I claim some kind of observational powers that other humans don't have?

 

[alt]

I'm sorry... did I claim some kind of observational powers that other humans don't have?

No, you didn't. My reply was to Flex's which you seemed to agree with following his. But I shouldn't have included you in my reply. My bad - sorry.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, you didn't. My reply was to Flex's which you seemed to agree with following his. But I shouldn't have included you in my reply. My bad - sorry.

I don't believe Flex has ascribed superhuman powers of observation to himself either, but I won't get in the middle of that. Apology accepted... I've made much dumber moves here on PF... just ask a mentor. *wince*.

 

[alt]

I don't believe Flex has ascribed superhuman powers of observation to himself either, but I won't get in the middle of that. Apology accepted... I've made much dumber moves here on PF... just ask a mentor. *wince*.

OK - but please note, I didn't say Flex ascribed superhuman powers to himself. Those were your words. I replied to his ..

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

 

[FlexGunship]

Ugh, this conversation is degrading again! C'mon guys. I never got any answers, actually... has anyone else read this book other than Ivan and myself?

 

[alt]

Ugh, this conversation is degrading again ..

Agree. Check out post 569 for instance.

 

[FlexGunship]

Agree. Check out post 569 for instance.

Momentary departures from conversation for the sake of humor or as an expression of greater humanity are common place. The ability to recognize an opening in a conversation to inject some nuance of gaiety is not somehow implicitly anti-conversational!

However, dragging the conversation significantly off-topic to avoid a point is bad form. I asked a question to revive the discussion since we went into the weeds and you intentionally avoided it. My post followed the standard form of "<observation> <question>" and you responded to the observation instead of the question.

EDIT: How about, before the end of the day, we all post pictures of ourselves with our copies of the book?

 

[alt]

Momentary departures from conversation for the sake of humor or as an expression of greater humanity are common place. The ability to recognize an opening in a conversation to inject some nuance of gaiety is not somehow implicitly anti-conversational!

However, dragging the conversation significantly off-topic to avoid a point is bad form. I asked a question to revive the discussion since we went into the weeds and you intentionally avoided it. My post followed the standard form of "<observation> <question>" and you responded to the observation instead of the question.

EDIT: How about, before the end of the day, we all post pictures of ourselves with our copies of the book?

You said the conversation had degraded. I gave you an example where it had. The second part of your point about anyone having read the book, wasn't my consideration. But in any case, no, I haven't read it. If that was the matter that interested you specifically about me, I would have replied directly had you been more specific.

 

[nismaratwork]

OK - but please note, I didn't say Flex ascribed superhuman powers to himself. Those were your words. I replied to his ..

It just shows you that there's literally no end to how wrong we can be about something no matter how sure we are about it.

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

Where is the "except [Flex]"? I just see uses of "we" to specifically make the point that EVERYONE is included? I don't know if you two have some personal problem, but I don't think this is the place to hash it out.

 

[alt]

Where is the "except [Flex]"? I just see uses of "we" to specifically make the point that EVERYONE is included? I don't know if you two have some personal problem, but I don't think this is the place to hash it out.

Arghh .. No, it was an attempt at humor, on my part. I didn't mean Flex - I meant me. Look;

.. by pointing out that no one can be excluded from it (except me, of course) :-)

See the smiley thing [ :-) ] ?

Meaning, kind of .. everybody thinks they're always right, but really, there's no end to how wrong they all can be .. except for me, ie, I'm always right ..

Self depreciating humor to make an ironic point ..

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah... the internet strikes again... it happens.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

 

[mugaliens]

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

Phooey. Beware those who attempt to capitalize on their "sighting." History long ago confirmed they're simply out there to make a buck.

For what it's worth, I worked for Col Charles I. Halt for a year several years after the incident recounted in Kean's book. The man's a good manager, not prone to flights of fancy, and is about as pragmatic as you could ask for. If he said he saw something that wasn't made or operated with any known technology, I'd bet on him and not any nay sayers.

Fair enough, but bad bet. I hope you didn't put any money towards it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

Phooey. Beware those who attempt to capitalize on their "sighting." History long ago confirmed they're simply out there to make a buck.



Fair enough, but bad bet. I hope you didn't put any money towards it.

Indeed... its like betting against everyone you know never cheating on a lover or spouse; you dont' want to think it's going ot happen... it's going to happen. Good people are not saints, and pragmatic people still fall to the extraordinary. This is what makes Skepticism so critical to a meaningful investigation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had a few minutes to pop in and in saw this.

Having spent 20+ years in our military's service, and having seen many things, 99.99999 explainable, I wish you and Col Charles I. well as he huddles around his deck-bound fireplace.

Who else doesn't recognize this fatalistic pattern, here? "Nope! I know what I saw! I'll not recant, neither will I provided any additional information by which you might prove me wrong!"

There were multiple witnesses and official military reports. Are you suggesting that a [then] Lt Colonel in charge of a nuclear weapons base, filed a false report so that he could capilalize on it thirty years later; having no way to know the information would even be public? We didn't even have the Freedom of Information Act at that time, so he had no way to know it ever would or could later be public information.

Do you actually know anything about this case or are you just spouting opinions? Based on your response, you seem to be speaking out of ignorance.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need to assume deception or greed, Ivan - it is more reasonable to assume the vast majority of people who claim they have seen or may have seen alien spacecraft are simply mistaken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no need to assume deception or greed, Ivan - it is more reasonable to assume the vast majority of people who claim they have seen or may have seen alien spacecraft are simply mistaken.

He never makes any such claim.

Again we see the fallacy that UFO means alien. Let's stick with the facts please.

 

[russ_watters]

Besides being wrong, Ivan, way to miss my point.

"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I._Halt

Again we see the fallacy presented backwards!

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with Russ on this one...

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Well of course he's trying to make a buck. I'm not going to begrudge him that. So's the kid who broke the unwritten rules against hiking and climbing solo and had to hack his own arm off after being trapped for a few days. At least the Colonel isn't capitalizing on an act of abject stupidity.

Last I heard, Mr Halt was a general manager of a gated retirement community down south. I doubt he's merely huddling somewhere, and certainly not around a deck-bound fireplace. I said I worked for, not that I was his close drinking buddy. I'm a bit disappointed in you mugaliens, the fact that you take a swipe in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on him seems to indicate a lack of sincere scholarship and objectivity on your part.

It's human nature to tell stories about things that happen to you. And yes, often times they have embellishments added; although in this case, at least it's not about hoop snakes, a big blue ox, or a cowboy riding a cyclone. It's a well known and respected tradition for a retired military guy to be bought a drink as he recounts stories of his service days. Which is about what Col Halt is doing.

I'm convinced there was something actually at and around Bentwaters/Woodbridge those nights. That there were lights in the woods and in the air not attributable to landmarks like the Oxford lighthouse, or to aircraft. I'm even willing to accept that Penniston and his partner actually encountered the craft they describe, and that it didn't match any widely known technology AT THAT TIME.

I doubt the craft was extra-terrestrial in origin. What I really think is that they encountered an advanced, un-piloted drone surveillence platform that wasn't functioning properly that had been sent into spy on the installation. No jet engines, no propellers, triagular, metallic skin, some lights on it. May or may not have left radioactive traces on the landing site. May have caused burn marks on the trees next to the landing site.

How about a craft powered by a nuclear source to provide electricity such as used for satellites? Remember the one that crashed in Canada a couple decades ago? And what if this particular craft used a Biefeld–Brown effect for levitation and propulsion? Discharges into the trees would cause burn marks. If I lost control of the craft, and noticed two enlisted guys were next to it. I'd probably wait to power it up only after they had gotten far enough away to take off without electrocuting them. And I'd fly that thing out of there as soon as possible to prevent it from falling into their hands permanently. Purely human activity with advanced technology not seen or understood by more than a handful of people at the time, being used for cold war spying on nuclear facilities. Yeah, sounds like a James Bond story, but a lot more beleiveable than ETs. AND definitely a threat to national security.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well of course he's trying to make a buck. I'm not going to begrudge him that. So's the kid who broke the unwritten rules against hiking and climbing solo and had to hack his own arm off after being trapped for a few days. At least the Colonel isn't capitalizing on an act of abject stupidity.

Hmmm... is there any response to that which WOULDN'T sound like an insult?

Last I heard, Mr Halt was a general manager of a gated retirement community down south. I doubt he's merely huddling somewhere, and certainly not around a deck-bound fireplace. I said I worked for, not that I was his close drinking buddy. I'm a bit disappointed in you mugaliens, the fact that you take a swipe in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on him seems to indicate a lack of sincere scholarship and objectivity on your part.

Or experience...

It's human nature to tell stories about things that happen to you. And yes, often times they have embellishments added; although in this case, at least it's not about hoop snakes, a big blue ox, or a cowboy riding a cyclone. It's a well known and respected tradition for a retired military guy to be bought a drink as he recounts stories of his service days. Which is about what Col Halt is doing.

It's also human nature to lie, even when it isn't rational.

I'm convinced there was something actually at and around Bentwaters/Woodbridge those nights. That there were lights in the woods and in the air not attributable to landmarks like the Oxford lighthouse, or to aircraft. I'm even willing to accept that Penniston and his partner actually encountered the craft they describe, and that it didn't match any widely known technology AT THAT TIME.

You've now told us what you believe, but with nothing new to support it. You reveal your fundamental argument to be an appeal to authority which confirms your beliefs.

I doubt the craft was extra-terrestrial in origin. What I really think is that they encountered an advanced, un-piloted drone surveillence platform that wasn't functioning properly that had been sent into spy on the installation. No jet engines, no propellers, triagular, metallic skin, some lights on it. May or may not have left radioactive traces on the landing site. May have caused burn marks on the trees next to the landing site.

How about a craft powered by a nuclear source to provide electricity such as used for satellites? Remember the one that crashed in Canada a couple decades ago? And what if this particular craft used a Biefeld–Brown effect for levitation and propulsion? Discharges into the trees would cause burn marks. If I lost control of the craft, and noticed two enlisted guys were next to it. I'd probably wait to power it up only after they had gotten far enough away to take off without electrocuting them. And I'd fly that thing out of there as soon as possible to prevent it from falling into their hands permanently. Purely human activity with advanced technology not seen or understood by more than a handful of people at the time, being used for cold war spying on nuclear facilities. Yeah, sounds like a James Bond story, but a lot more beleiveable than ETs. AND definitely a threat to national security.

Meaningless speculation unless you have anything like a source or even hint to support that. I'd go so far as to say that you're pushing guidelines or breaking them.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw. We are technology students given a situation and required to reproduce that situation using known technology. Since nobody is saying that Halt & Co. didn't actually see anything, then we must proceed with the postulate that they misinterpreted what they saw.

Was what they saw a hoax? Possibly. One man even admits to configuring the lights on his truck as a joke. Which, while that might explain lights in the woods, does nothing to explain lights in the air or radar traces. Add to the fact that the timing of his "prank" can't be tied chronologically to the Rendlesham events, and that makes him an unlikely candidate. Were the two airmen hallucinating? I don't know. I'd love to know if they were subjected to any drug testing. Since the security police had frequent random drug tests, I'm inclined to discount illegal drug use induced hallucinations on their part. Highly doubtful they would have called the colonel away from the party if they were doing something they shouldn't have been that night. Which you should know from your own military experiences.

So what does that leave us? ETs just doesn't cut it with Occam's Razor. Which leaves us with technology, possibly not widely known or exploited as our weapon. As for motive, this was the cold war, plenty of motive then.

Of course there's nothing new to support it. Testable evidence about a transient past event always decreases with the passage of time. There was a fatal car crash at the end of my street several years ago. Lots of people saw it. But go back there today and you won't find any evidence of it. Even the woman's body buried in a cemetary somewhere doesn't count as absolute proof of that particular accident anymore. Evidence only exists in written reports and the memories of the authorities there at the time. Truly, only an appeal to authority works.

I am fully aware of the guidelines and the fact that the Biefeld–Brown effect is NOT a valid space-propulsion effect, does not work in a vaccuum, and has no proven gravitational effect. However, electrohydrodynamics (EHD) IS proven technology. It does work quite well in the atmosphere, and especially at air densities close to sea-level, as the Bentwaters/Woodbridge area enjoys. People have been building model airplane-sized lifters all over the world. And what is a small, unmanned surveillence drone other than a souped up model airplane?

Why build one that way for spying? Probably because it isn't what anyone would expect or prepare against. I haven't built one myself, but the designs of it look like it ought to be quieter than an internal combustion engine or a normal jet engine, no matter how small you scale it.

This IS a Physics Forum. Provide real examples of why something could or could not occur. Well sirs, I stipulate that I have presented a situation that could be constructed by any university students today, and could have been constructed by an interested government several decades ago that would have accounted for the incident at Rendlesham Forest.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw. <SNIP>

Please research: Burden of Proof, in law, science and skepticism. I'll read the rest of your post later.

edit: To your last point, you're right, but the person making the claim is the one who has to prove things. Sorry, but you should read the guidelines for this forum in general, and S&D in particular. Only you are hurting yourself now.

 

[berkeman]

Not off topic as this is a thread discussing a book on UFO sightings.

Meaningless speculation? Au contraire monsieur! UFO debunking requires that we prove the witnesses saw nothing, or misinterpreted what they saw.

(snip)

This IS a Physics Forum. Provide real examples of why something could or could not occur. Well sirs, I stipulate that I have presented a situation that could be constructed by any university students today, and could have been constructed by an interested government several decades ago that would have accounted for the incident at Rendlesham Forest.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the ones debunking the claim. As nismar says in his reply. I find your proposed scenario interesting, but without proof (which I think we all acknowledge will be hard to come by), it is still just speculation.

Please research: Burden of Proof, in law, science and skepticism. I'll read the rest of your post later.

edit: To your last point, you're right, but the person making the claim is the one who has to prove things. Sorry, but you should read the guidelines for this forum in general, and S&D in particular. Only you are hurting yourself now.

 

[Physics-Learner]

it is only speculation ? the whole thread is about a topic that requires some speculation.

it is titled "Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".

there are a few of these officials who claim to have seen aliens. while it is the opinion of some other officials that they are of et origin.

 

[nismaratwork]

it is only speculation ? the whole thread is about a topic that requires some speculation.

Yes... your point?

it is titled "Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".

WHAT?! I thought this was the "cheese-cream soup" thread. I've been hoodwinked!

there are a few of these officials who claim to have seen aliens. while it is the opinion of some other officials that they are of et origin.

Right, but I'm still not getting your point. This is S&D, where speculation comes to die or pass on to the next phase of its existence.

 

[Physics-Learner]

my point was simple and clear.

 

[nismaratwork]

my point was simple and clear.

OK... what was it?... all I saw was a restatement of some elements of then OP in a somewhat disconnected way. I am missing your point... so... if that's what you want, win for you!

If you actually want to make a point however... maybe clarify?

 

[Physics-Learner]

okay. first, let me state that i don't believe or disbelieve. i think the govt could keep the fact that of "real ets" hidden from the masses, if they wanted to. this would assume the "prime directive from star trek" that an alien does not want to interfere.

however, i do agree that the burden of proof is on the one stating that there are ets.

but the point i was making is that the whole topic is "highly speculative". so it is out of place to tell someone that they are going against the rules of the forum for being speculative.

in my book, that makes that person look biased in his "disbelief ".

personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

 

[nismaratwork]

okay. first, let me state that i don't believe or disbelieve. i think the govt could keep the fact that of "real ets" hidden from the masses, if they wanted to. this would assume the "prime directive from star trek" that an alien does not want to interfere.

however, i do agree that the burden of proof is on the one stating that there are ets.

but the point i was making is that the whole topic is "highly speculative". so it is out of place to tell someone that they are going against the rules of the forum for being speculative.

in my book, that makes that person look biased in his "disbelief ".

personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

OK, I get your point. Regarding my bolding... this is the central issue that I'd address. High level people are not necessarily any more qualified to make these identifications than any other, and they are no less susceptible to human frailties and nature.

Beyond that, it would seem an enormous secret to keep alien life of any kind from the public, and from other governments. Given successful (Abe Lincoln's assasinatio) conspiracies, and those that are less perfect (F-117, while secret, was not completely unobserved or noticed).

 

[Physics-Learner]

i think they are less susceptible. but if we were talking about 1 or 2 incidents and a handful of people, then i would probably not put much emphasis on it yet. but we are talking hundreds, and dozens of incidents. i simply can't just wipe it all away, just because it doesn't meet my previous thought patterns.

i don't think we can compare an event caused by a human versus one caused by an alien, in terms of people knowing about it.

i now have lots of doubt about the sincerity of the cseti group. but let's just take their one claim that many of these visits have been to disarm missiles, and such - that their major concern is us bringing weapons into space.

that being said, it is a small assumption to think that an alien race could keep itself hidden from the masses, and only target those areas of concern.

in fact, i think why it opens my "belief factor" is that it is not only possible, but i think possibly likely that an alien group might behave this way. of course, i realize that the ones making these claims also realize that it is going to seem like a likely type of behavior from an advanced civilization.

i consider myself to be on the fence, but still leaning towards there not being any et visitations. but it would no longer surprise me to find out that there have been.

for me, it would not really affect my life one way or the other. so unlike a lot of people and groups, i don't have any emotional/financial reasons to hope one way or the other.

although i figure it may be good for people in general, since they may have some sort of technology/medicine that could be helpful to us. and i am not scared, since i figure they could have already destroyed us, if that was their goal.