James Fox -- July 1, 2012

[SPX]

Instead, horrible zealots like Leslie Kean waste people's time with silly videos of insects.

Have you actually read her book?

 

[Kieran]

I'd agree with the statement Lance made, 60+ years of Ufology and what do we really have? Some interesting (at least in my mind) historical correlations, landing trace cases which are open to interpretation and witness testimony, not much more than we had when the whole thing jumped off. Personally, I'm a fence sitter on the whole issue, I'm comfortable saying "I don't know, but I think it's worthy of further study." When I got into the whole thing, I was a definite believer in the ETH. However, the deeper I got into this field the more I found fraud, new age mumbo jumbo and outright bullshit being presented as science fact. Science has it's limitations just like anything else, but I think it's made more progress in our understanding of the world and the universe than any discipline before it and I think it will eventually reveal what's behind the curtain when it comes to UFO's.

Human beings reportedly have sighted strange flying objects in the sky for centuries. I don't believe there is a country on Earth were someone hasn't reported at least one sighting. Its the enormity of what we've got, its not just one or two or ten UFO reports from a few people on the record. There is literally hundreds of sighting reports archived since 1947 from people with nothing to gain from it, but ridicule and scorn. Its beyond the pale, that not one, of those genuine UFO experiencers, reported what they were seeing in the sky accurately. I honestly do not believe this phenomenon can be explained through conventional wisdom.

UFO undesirables unfortunately also are everywhere nowadays, promoting disinformation and information that only the true believer would buy into. Many of the so called UFO celebrities in this field are also a joke and only in it for the most part for their own self serving reasons. Skeptics like Lance call Ufology a religion for some people it is, there is no getting away from that finding. I'm sure Lance, doesn't believe we all view this as a new religion to worship and follow?

Can science solve this mystery?

UFO's don't prolong their stay, as soon as object is seen. It moves on or just vanishes into thin air. How you could measure or study this kind of phenomenon effectively i have no clue honestly. The genuine UFO cases often are months or years apart. So catching this phenomenon off guard is not likely. Military and government employee reports obviously should be considered more reliable than a civilian UFO report.

The abduction phenomenon personally i think lot of it is fake ( numbers of people reporting this worldwide is low very low numbers, but people in the States much higher. It suggests something other than ET visitation is pushing those numbers up.

 

[SPX]

First, thanks keeping this conversation grounded even while I undoubtedly come off as abrasive.

We all believe whatever it is that we believe and sometimes get passionate about our own positions.

The truth is that if it could somehow be proven that every single UFO report in the history of the field has a mundane, unromantic explanation, then I wouldn't actually be totally shocked, for many of the reasons that you have mentioned. But right now, based upon the evidence that I am familiar with, that is not a conclusion that I feel like I can jump to.

I will also say this: You have your true believers on one side, but you also have the equivalent--we could call them true doubters--on the other. That is, people who are so entrenched in their skepticism that without some kind of absolute, undeniable proof then they are not even open to the idea of any kind of paranormal phenomena.

Personally, I sit pretty close to the middle, with sympathies toward the believers camp for a variety of reasons. It is, at this point, the most honest stance I can take.

The thing about the radar in this case, of course, is that it seems to NOT support the case. And radar as evidence is notoriously unreliable (the unreliability increases exponentially as the age of the case increases--technology has changed a lot over the years). Further, this kind of evidence is subject to the tea leaves interpretation that plagues much of paranormal discussion. As I alluded to, the claim that the various radar reports were correlated does not seem to be true.

I think you know more about it than I do, both in regard to radar technology in particular and in regard to the radar evidence for this case. So I'll have to take your word for it until I can assess the facts for myself.

Like I said though, I think that radar evidence is only supplemental. It's one piece of a puzzle. It doesn't make or break a case.

(I also have to say that, if ET is really coming from another star system or another dimension, then surely they also have pretty advanced cloaking technology.)

I do think that incontrovertible evidence could be obtained if a certain subset of common reports were true.

I imagine a daylight sighting, closeup, and a "craft" that shows detail. This kind of report happens all the time (see Trained's post above).

This sighting would need to be photographed or video taped from several unrelated parties (and perhaps passive sources like security cameras) in several different locations.

I could add a few more qualifiers but that is the gist of it.

If the claims are true, we SHOULD already have this kind of evidence.

We don't have anything close.

I agree that we should have this. And I actually do kind of think it's damning that we don't. What's the explanation? I don't know.

 

[SPX]

Ah, but we have the Phoenix case where people imagined they saw a "diamond-shaped, clearly physical object" because people do that exact thing with lights in the sky. This, for me, negates much of your argument.

Why is it exactly that you have concluded they imagined these things?

 

[SPX]

Its beyond the pale, that not one, of those genuine UFO experiencers, reported what they were seeing in the sky accurately.

Co-Signed

 

[SPX]

"Why is it exactly that you have concluded they imagined these things?"

Because the video that does exists makes this clear.

All the videos I've seen look something like this:

And since that clearly could not be confused with a huge triangular craft that moves silently through the air, I have to think that there was something else going on.

It's been a while since I last reviewed the Phoenix case, but didn't reports come in from northern Arizona as well, and not just Phoenix? And didn't the reports come in chronologically so that a timeline could be established, just as if a craft were traveling overhead from one location to another?

 

[exo_doc]

Thank you.

It amazes me that "skeptics" will say that they know that this was all fake because someone said so, yet fail to ask that if it really was fake, why were there scores of witnesses over several months, Belgium Air Force Pilots who actually chased the thing and multiple radar hits? I would think a true skeptic would be asking these questions.

The only "evidence" that anything was fake was one person who claimed he faked one photo. Big whoopee.

Belgian UFO wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A critical mind is a valuable tool but not if we only use it to pick apart that which we do not want to hear, regardless of its merits. In the case of the Belgian UFO photo (and the entire Belgian UFO wave), we should weigh those who say they faked evidence against the testimony of scores of other witnesses including military pilots, observers on the ground and numerous radar hits. Even if one photo is a fake, this is no way diminishes what took place over several months. Whether or not these people were observing an alien craft, a military test craft or some kind of other anomaly, something definitely unidentified was in their airspace.

Excellent post!

 

[exo_doc]

All the videos I've seen look something like this:

And since that clearly could not be confused with a huge triangular craft that moves silently through the air, I have to think that there was something else going on.

It's been a while since I last reviewed the Phoenix case, but didn't reports come in from northern Arizona as well, and not just Phoenix? And didn't the reports come in chronologically so that a timeline could be established, just as if a craft were traveling overhead from one location to another?

Let's not forget there were TWO different events that evening in Phoenix;
#1. The event at around 8:30pm where people saw the huge boomerang shaped craft,
#2. The event around 10:30pm that the above video shows.

Event #1 is the one that blew the witnesses away with it's size and lack of noise, and graceful movement.
Event#2 video has been analyzed and shown (to my satisfaction at least) that they were indeed flares dropped in a line by the military. I have always thought that was too much of a coincidence so soon after event #1. Deliberately throwing confusion on event #1? You decide.

Event # 1 has no video or pictures that I know of, but the witnesses I have seen being interviewed just seemed so honest and convincing I just can't pass that away as anecdotal heresay.

 

[SPX]

Here is some more info (page 7) if anyone is interested in facts at all (which almost no one seems to be).

I'll check that out.

BTW, do you have a link to the Procter video? I did a cursory Google search but couldn't find anything.

 

[exo_doc]

Sigh, again.

The above stuff gets repeated ad infinitum by believers who just don't bother to look into the case.

It's funny how these cases stand for many believers: just the way they were when they first heard them, immutable and unchangeable.

There is a video of the first event by a man named Terry Procter. The video shows the V-formation of lights, certainly aircraft. The lights move independently of each other therefore they are not the mythical triangular craft. There was a formation of jets in the area at the time.

It's like juggling--one dumb idea gets destroyed and then you have deal with the next dumb idea. In the meantime, someone pulls up dumb idea number one and tosses into the air again.

It can be frustrating.

Here is some more info (page 7) if anyone is interested in facts at all (which almost no one seems to be).

Lance

Don't bother me with the facts Lance, my minds made up!!!
But seriously I guess I didn't know the events as well as I thought. It's been a while, so I'll look into it again.
Thanks for the link.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Can you possibly link up the 13,000 case reports?

My point that believers care nothing for the quality of the evidence is demonstrated above.

May I point to thousands of reports of leprechauns as supporting their existence? May I report millions of children seeing Santa Claus (in a CEIII event) as supporting that one?

Additionally, I discuss again and link some further data that casts doubt upon the supposed military/radar evidence. This causes not even a moment's pause? You simply restate the claim just as a priest would read from his own inerrant text.

Lance
@SPX
Yeah, some of the words we have to use like "prosaic" are cumbersome but they save typing!

There's precious little point in me providing links that you won't click, as has clearly been the case. The Wiki site I linked to above explained that there were more than 13,000 sightings in just one night, of which, more than 2,000 filed official written statements. Oh well, let's see if you can read a quote:

The Belgian UFO wave peaked with the events of the night of 30/31 March 1990. On that night unknown objects were tracked on radar, chased by two Belgian Air Force F-16's, photographed, and were sighted by an estimated 13,500 people on the ground – 2,600 of whom filed written statements describing in detail what they had seen.[1] Following the incident the Belgian air force released a report detailing the events of that night.

At around 23:00 on 30 March the supervisor for the Control Reporting Center (CRC) at Glons received reports that three unusual lights were seen moving towards Thorembais-Gembloux, which lies to the South-East of Brussels. The lights were reported to be brighter than stars, changing color between red, green and yellow, and appeared to be fixed at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. At this point Glons CRC requested the Wavre gendarmerie send a patrol to confirm the sighting.
Approximately 10 minutes later a second set of lights was sighted moving towards the first triangle. By around 23:30 the Wavre gendarmerie had confirmed the initial sightings and Glons CRC had been able to observe the phenomenon on radar. During this time the second set of lights, after some erratic manoeuvres, had also formed themselves into a smaller triangle. After tracking the targets and after receiving a second radar confirmation from the Traffic Center Control at Semmerzake, Glons CRC gave the order to scramble two F-16 fighters from Beauvechain Air Base shortly before midnight. Throughout this time the phenomenon was still clearly visible from the ground, with witnesses describing the whole formation as maintaining their relative positions while moving slowly across the sky. Witnesses also reported two dimmer lights towards the municipality of Eghezee displaying similar erratic movements to the second set of lights.

Over the next hour the two scrambled F-16s attempted nine separate interceptions of the targets. On three occasions they managed to obtain a radar lock for a few seconds but each time the targets changed position and speed so rapidly that the lock was broken. During the first radar lock, the target accelerated from 240 km/h to over 1,770 km/h while changing altitude from 2,700 m to 1,500 m, then up to 3,350 m before descending to almost ground level – the first descent of more than 900 m taking less than two seconds. Similar manoeuvres were observed during both subsequent radar locks. On no occasion were the F-16 pilots able to make visual contact with the targets and at no point, despite the speeds involved, was there any indication of a sonic boom. Moreover, narrator Robert Stack added in an episode of Unsolved Mysteries, the sudden changes in acceleration and deceleration would have been fatal to one or more human pilots.

During this time, ground witnesses broadly corroborate the information obtained by radar. They described seeing the smaller triangle completely disappear from sight at one point, while the larger triangle moved upwards very rapidly as the F-16s flew past. After 00:30 radar contact became much more sporadic and the final confirmed lock took place at 00:40. This final lock was once again broken by an acceleration from around 160 km/h to 1,120 km/h after which the radar of the F-16s and those at Glons and Semmerzake all lost contact. Following several further unconfirmed contacts the F-16s eventually returned to base shortly after 01:00.
The final details of the sighting were provided by the members of the Wavre gendarmerie who had been sent to confirm the original report. They describe four lights now being arranged in a square formation, all making short jerky movements, before gradually losing their luminosity and disappearing in four separate directions at around 01:30.[2]

Belgian UFO wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, clearly one faked photograph caused all this to happen because absolutely nothing was in the skies over Belgium that night. Mass hallucinations and faulty radar hits are a much more likely reason.

 

[SPX]

I think a big problem is that, at the end of the day, most of us are only able to go off what we read. We are ultimately taking someone's word for something rather than gathering and interpreting the raw data for ourselves.

In regard to the radar evidence, it basically seems like one side says one thing and the other says something else. But how can I know the truth with confidence? In this particular case, the only method that I can come up with to reach a truly satisfactory conclusion that is not based upon someone else's testimony or someone else's expertise is to become an expert in radar technology, get access to the raw data, and then interpret it for myself based upon my own knowledge of the subject.

This is why things like books, documentaries and articles should never be the end all be all of our research . . . it should merely be the starting point for independent investigation.

Then again, there's only so much time in the day. . .

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Notice above how I have discussed numerous points about the Belgian case. I have provided links that explore the problems with the pilot and radar claims as well. This includes a reference to the report that has now been disavowed by the original author in regards to the radar (but is still dully parroted by believers, including those saucer buffs writing the wiki entry and, of course, R-lady).

Despite the above, R-lady links to a Wikipedia article (which I have referenced myself above) and then STILL claims that I am saying that the fact that the main photographic evidence for the case has been exposed as a hoax is my only point.

Does this strike anyone as fair play?

Lance

Oh my. Please allow me to bring up a few points:

1. If you read the Wiki article, why are you then asking me for the specifics of the Wiki article? You asked a direct question about the numbers of reported sightings and I answered that question by using the same article you said you had read. Period. Full stop.

2. There were multiple radar hits made from multiple sources, including by the military pilots. If one person backed away from the claim (which can also be because a person was placed under duress and asked to back away from admitting what he saw on radar) this does not discount the sheer number of other witnesses nor the other sources of radar hits, including by the two military pilots who not only had radar locks on it but also chased the thing and reported it doing maneuvers that caused them to lose the radar lock. I think this last bit is an important part of the story.

3. I have said from the beginning that the (one allegedly) faked photograph was never an essential part of the story. It occurred months after the original sightings. The depth of the story comes from the number of witnesses, the military and the radar hits. Still, in spite of this, you keep beating the photograph to death whereas I've been insisting all along that the photograph is not and never was relevant to the case. I keep saying this over and over again. You keep wanting to fight about it even though this discussion ended pages ago.

4. You keep referring to me as a "believer". Could you please enlighten me regarding what I "believe"? As you apparently know more about my beliefs than I do, could you tell me if I believe that the sightings in Belgium were of an alien spacecraft? Since you don't like it when I repeat myself, I'll allow you to find that answer for yourself and read it.

This is a little off topic but I have a story for you. Grab some popcorn and get comfortable as I wouldn't want to bore you:

I have a much, much, much older father - as in, I was born two months prior to his 58th birthday. As a result of this, I can honestly say that I have a father who is a WWII vet and who worked for Braniff Airlines both before and after the war. Saying I have a lot of knowledge about the history of the airline industry would be the granddaddy of all understatements. I kind of grew up with the industry and wouldn't exist if not for Braniff. It's how my parents met.

My father started in Oklahoma but eventually got a position where he was working out of Dallas Love Field. As was his habit, he would spend his free time visiting with pilots, "airline hostesses" (now called "flight attendants") and the air traffic controllers. Sometime around 1950, he took a break to visit the controllers at Dallas Love only to discover that they were all anxiously watching something on their radar. What they saw was an enormous, cigar-shaped craft that just appeared somewhere over northern Texas. They put in calls to Oklahoma City and Little Rock, at which point all three cities were able to triangulate on the craft. It appeared on the radars of those three cities for an unknown number of minutes before it finally shot straight up and off their radar.

This made all of the papers at the time and for awhile it was the talk of that region. Then, all of a sudden, the talk just stopped and the papers went back to reporting on the usual things. My dad decided to check in on the air traffic controllers to learn what was had happened with the story. As soon as he started to ask, one of the controllers took him aside and shushed him. He explained that they were no longer allowed to discuss the incident and that some men from the government came by and actually threatened them if they continued to talk. I have no idea what those "threats" entailed but it was enough to keep them from even discussing it further with my dad. There was no further news about it and it's as though the story simply disappeared, except for the witnesses and the initial news reports.

There's a reason I'm bringing this up: A "skeptic" would say that as all news about this suddenly ceased and that some stories may have been retracted, it would therefore all have been a hoax or a giant misunderstanding. A true skeptic would look a little deeper and consider all of the evidence before simply dismissing the story. The true skeptic would understand that changes in testimony can occur by those under duress.

This is a common theme. I grew up around pilots and dated a few pilots. Whether or not they ever saw anything unusual while they were flying, the one consistency was that they knew what they could discuss and what they could not.... Or else. Part of this speaks about the airline culture but part of this is also the very real threat of being considered too incompetent to fly if they reported anything unusual. We could say much of the same thing about the business world. How many of us don't discuss the business environment or problems we see because it would negatively impact our careers and eventually our lives? There's corruption all around us but whistle blowers are the unusual occurrence. Testimony is often retracted for this reason.

At some other time, I'd love to discuss my dad's time in the Navy decoding Japanese messages at Bainbridge Island. The military culture would also give more insight into what might be considered common knowledge yet isn't discussed with outsiders.

 

[SPX]

. . . including by the two military pilots who not only had radar locks on it but also chased the thing and reported it doing maneuvers that caused them to lose the radar lock. I think this last bit is an important part of the story.

Yes, I think these kind of accounts are among the strongest forms of evidence. Pilots who say they not only saw, but interacted with, the object should be at the top of the list as far as reports are concerned. After all, they're not only trained observers but they also got a close-up visual.

All natural explanations--Venus, atmospheric conditions, etc--are ridiculous in cases like these. So it really only leaves two logical possibilities: they're lying or it happened.

This actually brings to mind an idea for a reality show that I have: Get people who have experienced paranormal things to not only recount their tale but also undergo a polygraph test. I think that would be extremely interesting.

This also reminds me of the UFO Hunters "Code Red" episode. It was one of the better ones. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's on YouTube, starting here:

 

[SPX]

That you don't understand the difference between a wikipedia article and an actual source is hilarious.

Well to be fair studies have shown that within a few months of a Wiki article getting posted it is almost always as accurate--and often times more accurate--than entries in non-user-edited encyclopedias. Also, as long as the article is done right, all information should be sourced so you should be able to get to the original data if you just follow the paper trail.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I wasn't asking for specifics of Wiki article. That you don't understand the difference between a wikipedia article and an actual source is hilarious. You may want to look into how wiki articles are curated. it may surprise you. I could go over right now and change that 13,000 to 13,000,000. Would it still be true for you?

Lance

Oh Lance, I have a little secret to let you in on: I write for a living and have completed small articles for the "real"encyclopedias when they have asked it of me. For good or ill, there really isn't the difference between Wiki and... say Encyclopedia Britannica. Most of my living comes from ghostwriting and I have a pretty good feel for how articles (and books) are generated and who all is generating the material.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'd love to discuss my dad's time in the Navy decoding Japanese messages at Bainbridge Island.

REALLY? My dad was in the Coast Guard in the mid '40s and said he helped ID a "Japanese spy" team on-shore (N. Seattle, if I remember correctly) who were blinking coded messages to subs offshore in Puget Sound. Its a small world w/only a couple of degrees of separation, it would seem...

 

[RenaissanceLady]

REALLY? My dad was in the Coast Guard in the mid '40s and said he helped ID a "Japanese spy" team on-shore (N. Seattle, if I remember correctly) who were blinking coded messages to subs offshore in Puget Sound. Its a small world w/only a couple of degrees of separation, it would seem...

It's absolutely true, I swear. My father rose to the rank of Chief while in the Navy and says it's among his biggest regrets that he didn't stay with the Navy after the war. He thought he needed to get back to Braniff but they treated him badly when he returned. I'd love to compare notes with you if you're interested, you can PM me. I love his stories and imagine your dad had some good stories as well.

 

[SPX]

The video is embedded in several documentaries (and not necessarily properly identified). Here is one:

Well, I watched the video. I actually realized that I have seen it before in some documentary or other at some point in time.

I also read most of the article, but will have to finish the rest later.

It does have me thinking. There's certainly some information there that I was unaware of and I'll concede that maybe the writer has gotten it all figured out.

Am I being too much of a "believer" though if I say that I still don't feel that all is explained? And that is seems possible that the triangular craft event could have actually been two separate events reported as one, i.e. a formation of planes and . . . something else?

I only ask this because there was undoubtedly a large group of independent witnesses who gave similar reports, describing a:

Massive, low-flying, slow-moving, silent, solid object that blocked out the stars.

By watching the Procter video, can you ever imagine any regular, rational person describing what you see there as all of the above? Some of the above maybe, sure. After all, at a high-altitude, at night, it's possible that witnesses perceived something solid connecting the lights, and since the planes were supposedly not large jets, perhaps it could be thought of as silent. But how could they ever perceive it as low-flying?

Furthermore, many of the witnesses described themselves as being in such awe that the event had a life-altering impact on them. In some cases, the entire course of their lives changed as they starting feeling all space brotherly and whatnot. Could you imagine a regular person, like you or me (as many of the witnesses were), seeing what was in the proctor video and being impacted in such a way?

Maybe it really was all the interplay of a rather unimpressive occurrence of real events combined with overactive imaginations. But having watched numerous documentaries on the subject, and having seen the passion of the witnesses as they recounted their stories, and having considered them to at least seem to be rational everyday kind of folks, I can't say that I don't still have questions.

You have got me thinking. But there's still an element of mystery here.

 

[Apocalypto]

I don't think there is any doubt among those of us who have studied the Phoenix Lights case to any suitable degree that the 10:00pm event was flares. Bruce Maccabee has said so, and he's a fairly intelligent man.

This video does nothing to explain the mile-wide pitch black triangles silently flying directly over people's houses (ahem - the "alleged" mile-wide pitch black triangles).

Also, for what it's worth, Lenny Rudin has done work for the CIA (among other agencies).