The UFO Incidents w/ Material Evidence

[Soupie]

This topic is a reaction to the recent thread here: The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is? While a great question and the thread an interesting read, I think there were two problems with the initial question:

1) There are no cases of identified, alien craft.
2) The phrase "most convincing" is simply too subjective.

With full understanding that the so-called UFO phenomenon may be real albeit a purely psychological phenomenon and/or a purely non-material phenomenon, regardless, I'd like to ask the following question of the UFO community:

Which UFO incidents have the following pieces of evidence:

1) Photographic and/or video evidence of the UFO.
2) Multiple witnesses, at least one of which is/was a police officer, pilot, member of the military, or a mechanical engineer.
3) Testimony from multiple witnesses: audio, video, or written.
4) Radar data
5) Material, mathematical analysis of the incident which reaches the conclusion that the phenomena can not currently be explained/identified.

-----

A list of cases coming the closest to meeting the above criteria:

1) White Sands/Lonnie Zamora Incident | April 24, 1964

Fulfills: Multiple witnesses, the primary being a respected police officer; multiple testimonies; and scientific analysis.

Does Not Fulfill: Photo/video of the UFO, and radar data of the UFO.

Possible Explanation: Prototype Lunar Lander or Surveyor
-----

2) Phoenix Lights Incident | March 13, 1997

Fulfills: Photo/video of UFOs; Multiple witnesses, including police, etc.; testimony; and scientific analysis.

Does Not Fulfill: Radar data of the UFOs.

Possible Explanations: First Event - Planes, Second Event - Flares
-----

3) Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 Incident | November, 17 1986

Fulfills: Multiple witnesses, including pilots; testimony; radar data; and scientific analysis.

Does Not Fulfill: Photo/video of UFOs.

Possible Explanation: N/A
-----

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that cases fitting the above criteria are the only credible cases, nor that an absence of cases fitting the above criteria mean that there have been no observed incidents of nuts and bolts UFOs.

 

[manxman]

1) Photographic and/or video evidence.
2) Multiple witnesses, at least one of which is/was a police officer, pilot, member of the military, or a mechanical engineer.
3) Testimony from multiple witnesses: audio, video, or written.
4) Radar data
5) Material, mathematical analysis of the incident which reaches the conclusion that the phenomena can not currently be explained/identified.


white sands has the fullhouse..

 

[Soupie]

white sands has the fullhouse..

Yes and no, and some moving of the goal posts on my part. When you say White Sands, are you referring to the Lonnie Zamora incident? If so, that is one of the coolest, most interesting cases I've ever heard of! I am completely intrigued! (And yes, I'm a complete novice as I'd never read about it before.)

Anyhow, when I said "photographic/video evidence" I meant of the actual UFO. So I edited that in the post above. Also, at least in the Wiki article, I didn't see any mention of radar data on the UFO. In my opinion, this incident lends some credence to the "breakaway society" theory of Richard Dolan, as humans clearly seemed to be operating the craft. If human tech like this exists, why doesn't the public know about it? Perhaps we do: I also think there is a good possibility the craft was a prototype Lunar lander or surveyor.

I'm also going to add the 3/13/97 Phoenix Lights incident to the list on the original post, although I didn't find any radar data for that incident either. Also, I personally think the flar explanation for the second event is legit, and the plane explanation for the first event is pretty legit too, especially with the photo analysis.

I'd love for others to add to this list, but I'll continue to work in it myself over time. If noobs find this post helpful, that's great.

 

[trainedobserver]

The JAL 1628 case almost makes it doesn't it? It reportedly has everything except the photographic evidence.

 

[Soupie]

The JAL 1628 case almost makes it doesn't it? It reportedly has everything except the photographic evidence.

Updated!

 

[Randall]

This topic is a reaction to the recent thread here: The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is? While a great question and the thread an interesting read, I think there were two problems with the initial question:

1) There are no cases of identified, alien craft.

Sure there are. It's just that not everyone agrees on that.

2) The phrase "most convincing" is simply too subjective.

True. But then again proof is simply evidence sufficient to make a person believe something is true, so proof is subjective too.

With full understanding that the so-called UFO phenomenon may be real albeit a purely psychological phenomenon and/or a purely non-material phenomenon,

Why add in those caveats and defocus the issue with the addition of the word "phenomenon"? Why not just skip straight to the question:

Which UFO incidents have the following pieces of evidence:

1) Photographic and/or video evidence of the UFO.
2) Multiple witnesses, at least one of which is/was a police officer, pilot, member of the military, or a mechanical engineer.
3) Testimony from multiple witnesses: audio, video, or written.
4) Radar data
5) Material, mathematical analysis of the incident which reaches the conclusion that the phenomena can not currently be explained/identified.

When you say, "have the following pieces of evidence", do you mean "have" evidence that is still in existence and able to be examined by analysts? Or are reports about such evidence sufficient? For example, two cases that I personally think are the best involved radar detection combined with visual confirmation by military interceptor pilots, one incident during daylight. However there are no official radar tapes available for inspection of these events, and the pilots are to my knowledge, no longer alive. All we have are remnants of reports.

Perhaps to make this really concise, I should simply issue the following statement: "As of the time and date of this statement, there is not to my knowledge, sufficient scientifically valid material evidence in the hands of the public to conclude that UFOs ( alien craft ) exist." How's that? Is it good enough for you to be certain that all UFO reports are something other than UFOs ( alien craft )? Why not?

 

[Soupie]

Sure there are. It's just that not everyone agrees on that. ... But then again proof is simply evidence sufficient to make a person believe something is true, so proof is subjective too.

First, we'll have to simply disagree about whether an alien, i.e., extra-terrestrial, craft has ever been identified. IMO, the most precise statement we can make regarding UFOs is that they do not appear to be human technology of which we (the public) are currently aware.

[And I find it interesting that in two of the three incidents that I have so far documented above, the primary witnesses all felt they had witnessed human technology, White Sands and the Japan Air Lines 1628. And I personally believe there is good analysis showing that the Phoenix Lights were planes and flares. I'm also going to add the Rendlesham Forest Incident, and I believe that too could very possibly have been human technology, albeit extremely advanced and unexplained.]

Second, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply listing the UFO incidents with the most material evidence.

Why add in those caveats and defocus the issue with the addition of the word "phenomenon"? Why not just skip straight to the question:

1) Because I'm very open to the fact that UFOs (the true meaning of the acronym) may have multiple origins and thus some may produce zero material evidence, and 2) because we (the public, at least) don't know the cause/nature/origins of UFOs, I feel the word "phenomenon" is a appropriate.

When you say, "have the following pieces of evidence", do you mean "have" evidence that is still in existence and able to be examined by analysts? Or are reports about such evidence sufficient?

Existing material evidence would be ideal, of course, but official documentation of the once-existing evidence by, say, the FAA or military would be better than nothing.

For example, two cases that I personally think are the best involved radar detection combined with visual confirmation by military interceptor pilots, one incident during daylight. However there are no official radar tapes available for inspection of these events, and the pilots are to my knowledge, no longer alive. All we have are remnants of reports.

I'd love to read about them if you can provide a link.

Is it good enough for you to be certain that all UFO reports are something other than UFOs ( alien craft )? Why not?

I'm not certain of anything in regards to the nature and origin of UFOs.

 

[manxman]

primary witnesses all felt they had witnessed human technology, White Sands

white sands was officially classified as unknown by hyneck and blue book., dont be at 'it' son, one lance is enough.

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following
information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being
recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the
following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit

 

[Soupie]

I believe we're talking about two different "White Sands" incidents. The one I'm referring to is linked in the first post.

 

[Burnt State]

Jal Pilot's Sketch.


Lieutenant Sulu's Sketch.

 

[trainedobserver]

Gordon Cooper's account of seeing "film" that his camera crew had just taken of a "classic flying saucer" landing at the dry lake bed near Edwards AFB is a good one as well. There was film and multiple eye-witnesses. Given the close proximity to Edwards there must have been radar tracking the thing as well. However, all we really have is Gordon Cooper telling us that it happened. It seems unlikely that Cooper would lie about such a thing, but it is possible. I tend to believe the guy.

He identified it as not being anything belonging to us and justified that statement by saying he was involved in our most advanced projects at the time and that wasn't one of them. Was Cooper spoofed? After all he did not see the saucer with his own eyes, only the film and then only held up to a light and not projected. It's possible. However this case establishes a couple of things if you believe it.

• The government knows about these things and they have film, and whatever Radar or other sensor information Edwards may have recorded.
  
• They were not alarmed or concerned about the saucer's presence as much as the perception of its presence.

Was Cooper spoofed, did he take part in the UFO/Alien myth-machine, or did his crew film a flying saucer landing in a dry lake bed? Impossible to tell for certain.

 

[manxman]

why spoof someone who was never going to speak outloud about it, his clearances at that time would have meant it was treasonable, only the best of the best got to be test piloting all the secret gear, he got old, he retired, he got philosophical, he talked, dementia would be my only doubt as to his word, but he coulda been spoofed, it just isnt a logical consideration based on what i know.

 

[trainedobserver]

why spoof someone who was never going to speak outloud about it, his clearances at that time would have meant it was treasonable, only the best of the best got to be test piloting all the secret gear, he got old, he retired, he got philosophical, he talked, dementia would be my only doubt as to his word, but he coulda been spoofed, it just isnt a logical consideration based on what i know.

Unless he was specifically told not to talk about it by his superiors, he wasn't under any oath of secrecy. That is probably the reason he could talk about that and the earlier incident when he saw UFOs himself. If Cooper had been told not to talk about it, or if it violated some oath, I do not believe he would have said anything.

I don't think he was spoofed, but I do think it is a possibility. I also think there is the possibility that he was part of the myth-making machinery, although I doubt that as well.

 

[boomerang]

This interview is detailed and rather lengthy. The incident is outlined in Project Bluebook with an explanation of "stars".

The reader may want to start on page 15 where a description of strange events at Minot begins. I believe original visual records of the B-52's radar images are somewhere in the public domain.

The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 | Documents | Interviews | Analysis

 

[Burnt State]

This interview is detailed and rather lengthy. The incident is outlined in Project Bluebook with an explanation of "stars".

The reader may want to start on page 15 where a description of strange events at Minot begins. I believe original visual records of the B-52's radar images are somewhere in the public domain.

The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968 | Documents | Interviews | Analysis

Thanks for turning me onto to the sign oral history project. The level of detail with the Minot case could ony be described as 'robust' in this website, just excellent material here!

 

[Burnt State]

Gordon Cooper's account of seeing "film" that his camera crew had just taken of a "classic flying saucer" landing at the dry lake bed near Edwards AFB is a good one as well. There was film and multiple eye-witnesses. Given the close proximity to Edwards there must have been radar tracking the thing as well. However, all we really have is Gordon Cooper telling us that it happened. It seems unlikely that Cooper would lie about such a thing, but it is possible. I tend to believe the guy.

He identified it as not being anything belonging to us and justified that statement by saying he was involved in our most advanced projects at the time and that wasn't one of them. Was Cooper spoofed? After all he did not see the saucer with his own eyes, only the film and then only held up to a light and not projected. It's possible. However this case establishes a couple of things if you believe it.

• The government knows about these things and they have film, and whatever Radar or other sensor information Edwards may have recorded.
  
• They were not alarmed or concerned about the saucer's presence as much as the perception of its presence.

Was Cooper spoofed, did he take part in the UFO/Alien myth-machine, or did his crew film a flying saucer landing in a dry lake bed? Impossible to tell for certain.

Cooper described the film crew who shot the material as very agitated and disturbed by what they had encountered. If all happened as described then that footage and those stills make up a celluloidal holy grail for ufology. If it was staged for his own benefit then the elaborate degree that the agencies will go to in order to complete their mission spares no expense. For a weird factor this is right up there with Kenneth Arnold's experience of the mysterious secratary's house that was furnished one day and clean, but empty, abandoned, dusty and filled with cobwebs no less when he went back the next day during his surreal Maury Island affair. The spooks obviously engage in very elaborate head games.