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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the polarized views surrounding UFOs and the motivations behind skeptics' criticisms. It highlights that many skeptics may be driven by fear of the unknown rather than a genuine desire for truth, as they often attack the credibility of UFO enthusiasts instead of engaging with the evidence. The importance of informed opinions is emphasized, suggesting that those who ridicule the subject may lack sufficient knowledge. Additionally, the conversation critiques the tendency for debates to devolve into personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue. Ultimately, the discourse calls for a focus on evidence and reasoned discussion rather than emotional responses.
  • #61
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

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

Really and truly, that's not what I was saying. Scouts honor. Honest injun. [It's OK, I'm part injun]
 
  • #63
Well, here's my take on it at this point.

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

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

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

So, let's say this is some military experimental craft, either US or Soviet. Either possibility would generate the same routing of info in high US government circles.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII.

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

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

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

I don't see a mechanical solution at this point. Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that no craft was ever seen No propulsion system is observed.
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.
The first object paced an F14 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F14 undergoing evasive maneuvers.
I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.
Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.
I don't follow your logic here at all. Please explain, in tiny little steps.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Here's a place to start...
Actually, where I would start is far more basic. I don't accept the validity of the report itself. Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo.html article, not written by the NSA, but in their database, it says that
...all these agencies agreed that the "top brass" mentioned in the distribution list were routinely informed of every item of interest which comes out of the sensitive Middle East area.

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

I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"
It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.
Speaking for myself, the fact the military termed it a UFO simply means they couldn't identify it. Nothing more.
I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.
Without knowing what each person who saw the report said in response not much more can be said about the fact it was circulated than that there was, at least, some wonder in high circles if it had any signifigance
 
  • #68
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.

I realize this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: I was working late and remembered one more thought on this: The object was said to start retreating from the F4 just after being hit by the plane's RADAR. Could this object have been reacting to the energy of the RADAR; literally being pushed along by the momentum of the RADAR photons? If we see the object on RADAR, then we are imparting a momentum to that object just by looking. Just some more speculation on my part...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
RAF Woodbridge / Bentwaters AFB: Rendlesham Forest

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.rendlesham.com/

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

NEW BBC REPORT: "UFO lights were 'a prank'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm
**A full review of the several incidents that constitute this case seem to evade explanation by this report. Note that at least three security officers reported the direct observation of a craft: "A triangular shaped object was seen on the forest floor". More information will be posted as it becomes available.***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"
Again, I'd like to hear a clarification of this by someone who would know (NSA or military). If the criteria was simply that (for example) every contact not specifically identified as benign gets reported in this way, then there is nothing special at all implied by the circulation of this one.

My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.
 
  • #71
Originally posted by russ_watters
My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.

I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described.
 
  • #72
Should we go on to the next case?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Should we go on to the next case?
Yes please.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described.
No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by russ_watters
No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.

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

EDIT: I can say that I have read a lot of this stuff, and most UFO reports seem to remain internal to the department involved. I guess in either case my fall back position would be that it says right on the report that the sources are of high credibility. This comes as the highest rating offered for selection by the reporting officer.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking In order to account for this report by means of technology [the human kind], it seems that we must assume the existence of a super technology that has existed at least [in this instance] since 1976.
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976. What I'm suggesting is the unproven, yes, but not impossible combination, of all those separate technologies into a single craft.
the only things known [in Jane’s Book of Planes] that could pace or evade an F4 in full pursuit was another F4 or later model [I’m not sure what the latest generation was in 1976], a Russian Mig, a few spy planes, and missiles.
First, let me correct the name of the aircraft I saw at Miramar: it was the Harrier Jump Jet, not the Aardvark. The Harrier is capable of 730 mph. The F4 may be faster, but there is, in fact, nothing in you summary to the effect that the F4 was ever going at its top speed.

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

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

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

Correct?

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

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

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

You must remember that the man who developed the plane dazzling mirrors for the military in WWII was a magician, they do employ such people, and I'm sure the soviets would as well.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
It will take me a little time to write summaries of some other arhieved military events, so why don't we look at Rendlesham now?
Remember the Rendlesham special is tonight on the Sci Fi channel. I want to see what if they bring anything new to the table. The links are posted above, and there are a couple of links at the bottom of the list that are not PDF files [see one below].

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

See also the bottom of this linked page for more information and links. The first link given earlier [a pdf file] is the original report from Lt. Col. Halt - the Deputy Base commander.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think this is true. If it actually happened, the separation and rejoining I think makes this impossible to explain with known technology.
The reason it is impossible for you to explain the appearance of one craft coming out of the other is because you don't know how it was done. I can't explain one David Copperfield trick. Nor can I explain any but the simplest of David Blaine's tricks.

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

What does ET need with strobe lights?

If us or anyone else had technology like this, it would be matter of national security.
Only if we could trace it to, and pin it on someone else. If it can't be it's a "UFO" which is not a matter of National Security.
Well, it is easy to read this and to think that a craft must have been present due to the implied intelligence. The rectangular lights strengthen this impression, but in fact he never reported any structured vehicle.
"The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away." "The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance."
So, the fact he did not report a structured craft is really immaterial, of no signifigance whatever. Just imagine any building the size of a jumbo jet covered with strobe lights flashing in several colors so quickly all could be seen at once. The building would be invisible.
Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects.
It strikes me as highly unlikely, then, that the F4s systems were hit with an EMP. If the EMP from a direct hit by lightning can't knock out a metal planes electronics, the size of the EMP that could would have to have knocked out the electronics of that whole city. The alternative (i know nothing about jet controls or systems) could be that the electronics that were effected are, in fact, vulnerable due to being to some kind of sensors on the exterior of the plane, through which the EMP could travel to the electronics.
More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.

that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt.

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

Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt. I call him: "Mini-me".
Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?
Actually, I'm not aware of any link between false memories and strong EM stimulation. Has Persinger demonstrated this as well? (I've only read about the OBEs and visual hallucinations.)

False memories don't require any hallucinations. They arise from following a train of thought while in a deeply hypnotized state. All that needs to be implanted in the mind is the verbal outline of the story. Details are filled in (created for the first time, actually) during recall, according to the person's understanding of how and what makes sence. The original train of the story can be implanted by someone else, can come from the persons own imagination with no outer involvement, or be a misinterpretation of external events happening while the trance is in progress.
 
  • #82
I will do my best to keep this story straight.

First we have the physical evidence:

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


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

Quick definitions (Roentgen)

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

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

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

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

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

Any comments or objections so far?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Also, these are two quotes [found in the Napster] from one of Britain’s highest ranking military officials [retired].

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

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

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

Clearly serious people take this subject seriously.
 
  • #84
Next, we have the radiation levels at one of the claimed "landing sites". This was the site inspected by Col Halt and his crew. Measurements made on the trees and on the soil at the spot where the UFO touched down measured as high as 0.1 mr/hr [milliroentgens per hour]. The background levels measured 0.015 mr/hr.
As I read this, a number of questions occurred to me:
- who took the radiation measurements?
- what instruments did they use?
- what controls did they take (e.g. radiation measurements in similar sites nearby that didn't have the depressions (etc), using the same equipment, ...)?
- what were the actual data?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we're limited to the documents that Ivan's presented, I'd suggest 'null hypothesis entirely consistent with limited data'.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, to support your position I guess you would need to produce more reports that were directed to the white house.
Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).
 
  • #86
Originally posted by russ_watters
Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).

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


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

EDIT: Actually, Russ, I don't agree. I have an official report from the NSA. The burden of proof is with you to show why we should ignore this evidence. The defense of this document is found on page two - the evaluation made by the Intelligence officer who filed the report. He states that this information is of high credibility. It was his job to make this determination.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
Well, I do have a bit more information on Iran - Two videos. I have not verified any additional claims made but I still post FYI. It is claimed that satellite data supports the initial report. Two commanding officers involved are interviewed.

Then, there are two videos about Bentwaters.

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

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

For Bentwaters, see the 7th from the top, 1st and 2nd from the left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Here are some eyewitness comments that I think further support my suggestion that indeed, just as suggested by Lord Hill-Norton, the personnel at Bentwaters may have been hallucinating. These comments are taken from a number of interviews with 4 officers that approached one or another of the UFOs at close range. Again, this all took place over three nights. First, before addressing the potential hallucinations, we have a few interesting details of the object as viewed by Halt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: Additional names and details are included. A few corrections are made.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Final note: The Sci-Fi channel hired a scientist to measure the radiation on site. As reported, no elevated radiation levels were measured. When they first began the show, Halt asks if the geiger counter measures in "mr", the reply is I think "tens per second". I was not familiar with this unit of measure.

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

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



Comments or objections?

Next case?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
The Lakenheath Radar/Visual UFO Case

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

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

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

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

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

Similar threads

Replies
705
Views
140K
Replies
98
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
14K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K