• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.


Rramjet

Skilled Investigator
Originally posted by Ron Collins:
So how about we get to something with substance. Lets see something that Ramjet has researched and would like to present to the forum for discussion.

OKAY HERE GOES Ron… Some research for you to kick things off:

The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

There are number of important things to come out of this research.

First, of 2199 cases analysed the number of UNKNOWN cases is more than 21% (see p.24). That means that the commonly held (mis)perception that a only mere 5% (or so) of UFO cases can be categorised as UNKNOWN (or unidentified) is a wild underestimate and not supported by the research evidence.

Second it must be noted that (again contrary to widely held opinion) that the greater the reliability of the report, the more likely it was to have been classified as UNKNOWN (see p.24). The UFO debunkers would have us believe that the less reliable a report, the more likely it will be to be classified as unknown. That is, the unidentified category in UFO reporting is actually a result of unreliable information resulting in an identification being unable to be made. The research tells us precisely the opposite is true! It must also be noted in this regard that the Battelle analysts created a separate category for INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION and separated those cases out before running their analyses.

The Battelle research also tests the UFO debunker hypothesis that all UFO reports can be explained as misidentified mundane objects (considering that the hoax and psychological categories are an insignificant contributor – around 1-2% combined).

The researchers did this by proposing the hypothesis that if UFO reports were all misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, colour, etc) between the KNOWN categorised reports and the UNKNOWN categorised reports (that is, if all reports are drawn from the same mundane population, we would expect there to be no difference in the defined characteristics).

It extensively tested the hypothesis using Chi-square analyses (pp. 60-76) and the results showed there was a statistically significant difference – falsifying the hypothesis.

Of course, as with the Condon Committee report, the author’s summary and interpretation in this research report runs counter to the actual results of analyses. But of course we havecome to expect that from officialdom have we not? What is important in this report is the actual statistics and results of the analyses, not the summary interpretations placed on them by the authors.

What are other’s opinions on this research?
 
OKAY HERE GOES Ron… Some research for you to kick things off:

The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

There are number of important things to come out of this research.

First, of 2199 cases analysed the number of UNKNOWN cases is more than 21% (see p.24). That means that the commonly held (mis)perception that a only mere 5% (or so) of UFO cases can be categorised as UNKNOWN (or unidentified) is a wild underestimate and not supported by the research evidence.

If we are only taking the Battelle Study in account then I would agree with your statement. However, that is not the end all be all of the 5% number. It is my understanding that we can use other avenues of report collection and analysis to further narrow that number. For instance, FAA reports on air safety, Cometta, analysis of data from civilian reporting and collection organizations (MUFON, NARCAP, NICAP, CUFOS, etc), and probably other statistical analysis from various and sundry sourcing.

It is further my understanding that the 5% number is an estimate and that no actual detailed analysis has been conducted as there is currently no globally accepted criteria for assessing "unknowns" and no combined database from which data can be accurately extrapolated. (Grammatical note: run on sentence echos my "stream of consciousness" style.. sorry.)

Until such research can be conducted the 5% estimate is widely accepted as the best possible guess considering all the different interpretations of the data. Personally, I don't think that is a bad line of logic to take.

---------- Post added at 04:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

Second it must be noted that (again contrary to widely held opinion) that the greater the reliability of the report, the more likely it was to have been classified as UNKNOWN (see p.24). The UFO debunkers would have us believe that the less reliable a report, the more likely it will be to be classified as unknown. That is, the unidentified category in UFO reporting is actually a result of unreliable information resulting in an identification being unable to be made. The research tells us precisely the opposite is true! It must also be noted in this regard that the Battelle analysts created a separate category for INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION and separated those cases out before running their analyses.

The Battelle research also tests the UFO debunker hypothesis that all UFO reports can be explained as misidentified mundane objects (considering that the hoax and psychological categories are an insignificant contributor – around 1-2% combined).

Agreed. The data collation in the Battelle Study benefitted from an active investigative process that had a goal of identifying any natural phenomenon that could be assigned to the reported characteristics in that case. By this mere fact the "unkonwn" label was honestly considered, and rightfully, considered to be anomalous. However, I would caution anyone from further taking this trend and projecting to reporting outside the Battelle Study as those reports rarely if ever are subjected to the same investigative scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 05:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 AM ----------

Of course, as with the Condon Committee report, the author’s summary and interpretation in this research report runs counter to the actual results of analyses.

Agreed. And this is absolutely clear to anyone that has studied the findings in the actual data presented. It is my personal belief that the Condon summary was the most successful ruse in all of UFO lore. It was placed there to avert a largely lazy and uninterested press corps. And it worked perfectly. Now, I don't think this was some mastermind plot by a nameless cabal of UFO information overlords. I think it was mostly a political decision to assuage concern of invasion/intrusion by the Soviets at the pinnacle of the Cold War. But, that is my own theory. :)
 
If we are only taking the Battelle Study in account then I would agree with your statement. However, that is not the end all be all of the 5% number. It is my understanding that we can use other avenues of report collection and analysis to further narrow that number. For instance, FAA reports on air safety, Cometta, analysis of data from civilian reporting and collection organizations (MUFON, NARCAP, NICAP, CUFOS, etc), and probably other statistical analysis from various and sundry sourcing.
Can you provide some links to where those organisations have stated the 5% estimate to be based on any actual research they have done – or are they merely accepting the common “received wisdom”?

It is further my understanding that the 5% number is an estimate and that no actual detailed analysis has been conducted as there is currently no globally accepted criteria for assessing "unknowns" and no combined database from which data can be accurately extrapolated.
But that is precisely my point. The Battelle study provided a methodology and it provided the results of analysis of a great section of the UFO cases on the Blue Book files at the time. As a scientist my leaning is toward the results of analysis based on real data rather than a “feeling” or “best guess” estimate that that is what the figure should be. I need the actual data and analysis to go on to make decisions.

I also suspect that it is actually the UFO debunkers who have forced this 5% figure onto ufologists – and rather than pick a fight where there was no perceived data on the issue to support them, the ufologist simply drew a line in the sand at 5% (the limits of accepted statistical significance) and thereafter merely kept reiterating that there remains a “small percentage” of cases that are truly inexplicable (UNKNOWN) and given that ufologists were able to provide evidence that this WAS the case, the argument then shifted to the veracity of the evidence itself and the 5% figure became the “accepted” wisdom.

(Grammatical note: run on sentence echos my "stream of consciousness" style.. sorry.)
No apologies necessary Ron – you writing is clear and you make your points well.

Until such research can be conducted the 5% estimate is widely accepted as the best possible guess considering all the different interpretations of the data. Personally, I don't think that is a bad line of logic to take.
You are illegitimately shifting the burden of proof there Ron. I have presented one (official) study that demonstrates the 5% figure to be (wildly) erroneous. If you are defending that figure, can you provide any evidence to show that it is accurate (as you claim it likely is)?

---------- Post added at 04:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 AM ----------

Agreed. And this is absolutely clear to anyone that has studied the findings in the actual data presented. It is my personal belief that the Condon summary was the most successful ruse in all of UFO lore. It was placed there to avert a largely lazy and uninterested press corps. And it worked perfectly. Now, I don't think this was some mastermind plot by a nameless cabal of UFO information overlords. I think it was mostly a political decision to assuage concern of invasion/intrusion by the Soviets at the pinnacle of the Cold War. But, that is my own theory. :)
Regarding Condon: It was definitely a political decision and it was also to save face of the researchers involved, who thought it was a poisoned challice to be handed such a research project. The Low "Trick Memo" demonstrates that in spades (Robert Low "trick" memo).

ETA: As for the Battelle report, Dr Alan J. Hynek stated:

The conclusions of the Battelle report and the material in the Pentagon press releases that followed were clearly designed to give the impression that science had administered the coup de grace to UFOs (the summary of the Condon Report, some years later, was fashioned to give the same impression) -except, of course, it wasn't science at all; only shamefully biased interpretation of statistics to support a preconceived notion. Once again, statistics which could have been used to illuminate were used instead to debunk the UFO phenomenon.” (p. 278 http://www.scribd.com/doc/43531895/J-Allen-Hynek-The-Hynek-UFO-Report-1977)
 
I remember going through this same argument with skeptic Lance who backed up the low percentage of unknowns using the common USAF public relations release. I had to go through the history of the USAF projects with him and outline the development of statistical reports. When you do that you realize that the big reduction in unknowns has nothing to do with better reporting or investigation, but of the way the reports were collected and filtered through to Blue Book, and the way the numbers had been spun in the post Robertson Panel environment. Of course we were still dealing with cases from dawn of the Modern Era ( in ufology ), but that isn't really relevant to the issue. In fact cases from back then are even better because the dilineation between technology at the time and UFOs was really clear cut. Today our own technology has become fairly advanced and for all we know, secret projects may have developed craft that mimic classic UFO behavior ( no real evidence of that yet though ). Also add to that the sheer number of things in the sky and the advent of digital fakery, and you have much more noise to contend with. Lastly, it's no less amazing to realize that Earth was being visitd by alien craft then than it is now. So these growing appeals to contemporary culture in order to minimize the significance of 50 year old cases isn't a valid criticism.

j.r.
 
Hi ufology - thank you for your comment.

I agree that the statistical outcomes and conclusions (as opposed to the whitewashed written summaries) from the Battelle report should be considered to be strong evidence – perhaps stronger than any we might be able to obtain from a similar study conducted in today’s environment – especially given the factors you mention (as well as others) such as the delineation between observations and technological capabilities of the time, the less crowded skies, the strong sense of national duty at the time to report these objects as accurately as possible in the interests of national security and the pre-digital environment.

There is a sense in the general debate concerning such factors that the UFO debunkers feel that evidence somehow loses its veracity as it ages. Why are we talking about fifty year old cases they will exclaim. Surely nothing new can be learned now? Why cannot you just move on? This is of course a nonsensical argument. Evidence is evidence, no matter what era it comes from (and fifty years is not a long time in scientific research – especially when there has been precious little or no peer reviewed program of research to drive the process of discovery and hypothesis and theory development forward in the intervening period). Ufologists don’t “move on” because the data from those early periods has not yet been fully recognised for the value it has for us. We cannot move on until that occurs. No discipline of research can simply ignore its base level data – to do so would be to an anathema to scientific investigation.

The ongoing debate concerning potential causal relations between popular culture and UFO observations is somewhat of a chicken and egg scenario. It must be stated however that rarely does the popular media take the lead in such matters, it is rather reactive to public sensibilities and the zeitgeist of the times – following and reacting to rather than breaking new ground and leading. It seems to me that the UFO phenomenon itself drove popular culture, rather than, as the debunkers claim, culture driving UFO observations. Nevertheless I don’t believe that it is at all able to be separated out into a black and white, either or, scenario so easily – there is of course a relationship there that works both ways – but the simple fact must be noted that popular media is rather more reactive rather than proactive.
 
Nice link to the memo ramjet, never seen that before.

Now that you have told us your real name, i googled it, man you have alot of stuff on the net in your professional capacity.

I didnt realise how well published alot of the posters here are either, googling their names is an eye-opener.
 
The issue that Ramjet touched upon regarding the value of historical evidence at the dawn of the modern era in the context of the socio-political and technological climate of the times may be far more underappreciated than many people reallize. What if the dawn of the modern era in ufology was when the only real sightings have ever taken place, and the rest of what we've been seeing since has been fakery and misidentifications and new technology or leftovers from the real ships like remote monitoring probes or shuttles with limited range. Perhaps all the mother ships have moved on and will never return. Do we let that curious period back in the late 40s and 50s just fade off into obscurity and myth instead of going down as the time in our history when Earth was visited by alien craft?

Another point to consider while we're on the topic of evidence, is the lack of acknowledgement by skeptics of anecdotal information. They tend to assume ( incorrectly ) that it has a 100% margin of error and that scientific conclusions are never wrong, or at least that's what is always implied because it's the only thing they will accept, citing as a reason that anecdotal evidence is unreliable. However in reality, the conclusions of science has often proved to be wrong and always has a margin of error. Information provided by eyewitnesses may not be perfect either, but neither does it have a 100% margin of error. In highly trained people like military pilots, the margin of error is very small. The cumulative effect of this is that after so many hundreds of sightings, the probablity that we are dealing with truly alien craft becomes a virtual certainty ... as certain as many scientific conclusions based on probablity ( which virtually all scientific conclusions are ).
 
Can you provide some links to where those organisations have stated the 5% estimate to be based on any actual research they have done – or are they merely accepting the common “received wisdom”?
No, I can not because there has been no real research conducted because of the lack of a centralized database and globally accepted criteria for proper classification.

But that is precisely my point. The Battelle study provided a methodology and it provided the results of analysis of a great section of the UFO cases on the Blue Book files at the time. As a scientist my leaning is toward the results of analysis based on real data rather than a “feeling” or “best guess” estimate that that is what the figure should be. I need the actual data and analysis to go on to make decisions.
I think we may be arguing semantics here. I completely agree that we can take the Battelle study as a microcosm for some level of analysis. I would further stipulate that this is about the only true study we can use for this purpose. However, I would also say that this data collection is very old. Given the age of the data the question "Does this still accurately reflect the nature of the phenomenon today?" must be asked. I submit that there are very good indicators that the nature of the phenomenon has changed somewhat. Physical descriptions, encounter frequency, craft behavior, and even flight characteristics.

I know I am being rather vague and that is kind of intentional as I am trying to look at the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the granular details for this portion of my point. Anyway... Basically, i want to convey that I completely agree that useful information can be derived from analyzing the historical data contained in the study. However, I think that in order to be accurate in any analysis you must take close look at the evolution of the phenomenon over time.

I also suspect that it is actually the UFO debunkers who have forced this 5% figure onto ufologists – and rather than pick a fight where there was no perceived data on the issue to support them, the ufologist simply drew a line in the sand at 5% (the limits of accepted statistical significance) and thereafter merely kept reiterating that there remains a “small percentage” of cases that are truly inexplicable (UNKNOWN) and given that ufologists were able to provide evidence that this WAS the case, the argument then shifted to the veracity of the evidence itself and the 5% figure became the “accepted” wisdom.
I have no problem with this line of logic. In fact I would bet that you are absolutely correct. From my point of view, 5% truly and properly classified "unknowns" (meaning stringent measures were taken to source a report with excellent witness data) should be enough to warrant an academically honest inquiry. From an aviation safety standpoint, 5% unknown is a HUGE number.

No apologies necessary Ron – you writing is clear and you make your points well.
Thank you and I must say we are having a very good discussion. I think you might fit in well here.

You are illegitimately shifting the burden of proof there Ron. I have presented one (official) study that demonstrates the 5% figure to be (wildly) erroneous. If you are defending that figure, can you provide any evidence to show that it is accurate (as you claim it likely is)?
I am not really meaning to defend the number so much as the representation of it. My own grossly informal study of the phenomenon leads me to a personal belief that the phenomenon has lessened in frequency and nature. It kind of represents, to my mind, and sort of stepping back from the phenomenon. I have zero problem in taking the 21% number as an historically significant percentage in a time of greater activity.

However, I am uncertain that such a number would still accurately represent the phenomenon over the majority of the intervening timeframe. As long as any data correlations carried a caveat reflecting the age of the data I would have no problems with it. I guess my entire point comes down to the idea that we should not assume a consistency in the data over time when other (albeit perhaps less scrutinized) data may suggest a significant evolution of behavior and physical characteristics.

---------- Post added at 07:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

I remember going through this same argument with skeptic Lance who backed up the low percentage of unknowns using the common USAF public relations release. I had to go through the history of the USAF projects with him and outline the development of statistical reports. When you do that you realize that the big reduction in unknowns has nothing to do with better reporting or investigation, but of the way the reports were collected and filtered through to Blue Book, and the way the numbers had been spun in the post Robertson Panel environment. Of course we were still dealing with cases from dawn of the Modern Era ( in ufology ), but that isn't really relevant to the issue. In fact cases from back then are even better because the dilineation between technology at the time and UFOs was really clear cut. Today our own technology has become fairly advanced and for all we know, secret projects may have developed craft that mimic classic UFO behavior ( no real evidence of that yet though ). Also add to that the sheer number of things in the sky and the advent of digital fakery, and you have much more noise to contend with. Lastly, it's no less amazing to realize that Earth was being visitd by alien craft then than it is now. So these growing appeals to contemporary culture in order to minimize the significance of 50 year old cases isn't a valid criticism.

j.r.

I get what you are saying but I still disagree somewhat. Lets take physical trace cases in the form of suspected landings. Ted Phillips was collecting a bunch of these during this same timeframe and just after. He has a few hundred landing cases where he was able to conduct soil compression ratio testing to determine an average weight by gear configuration table. But those type of cases have been dramatically reduced. He has said that at one point he was getting about one report a month on average. So many that he was having a really hard time keeping up. Contrastingly, I think he has stated that he may get one report a year on average now. My point being that the data collection may be skewed during this timeframe if it was a period of greater frequency of occurrence. It is this kind of data that makes me want to lower the 21% to something like 5%. In the end I am not married to the 5%.

But, I do think that the 21% number is too high. But, I will quickly concede that I have no empirical data to back this up. Mostly because of the failings of having any regulated and normalized collection and analysis agency/organization, no centralized database to aid in analysis, and no ability to correlate data points 3rd party datasources (USGS seismic Db's, Weather DB's, Solar activity DB's, etc), and no academic support and peer review process.

---------- Post added at 08:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 AM ----------

Another point to consider while we're on the topic of evidence, is the lack of acknowledgement by skeptics of anecdotal information. They tend to assume ( incorrectly ) that it has a 100% margin of error and that scientific conclusions are never wrong, or at least that's what is always implied because it's the only thing they will accept, citing as a reason that anecdotal evidence is unreliable. However in reality, the conclusions of science has often proved to be wrong and always has a margin of error. Information provided by eyewitnesses may not be perfect either, but neither does it have a 100% margin of error. In highly trained people like military pilots, the margin of error is very small. The cumulative effect of this is that after so many hundreds of sightings, the probablity that we are dealing with truly alien craft becomes a virtual certainty ... as certain as many scientific conclusions based on probablity ( which virtually all scientific conclusions are ).
I could not agree more with this. I will always trust an airline pilot of more than 20 years to identify or more to the point NOT identify something in the sky than the ubiquitous "Bob from Accounting". You will never convince me that these two guys have the same ability in recognizing aerial phenomenon. To me that notion is absurd.
 
Ron –

I can accept most of what you are saying, however I would like to pick up on a couple of points you made. In reference to the Battelle study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

I would further stipulate that this is about the only true study we can use for this purpose. However, I would also say that this data collection is very old.
I really do wish that people would stop saying this Ron. Do you criticise the data on which Galileo, Newton, Darwin or even Einstein based their work because it is “very old”? Regarding the Battelle era data, as both ufology and myself have pointed out, such data is (for various reasons) perhaps actually “cleaner” than that which might be obtainable today. Evidence is evidence, no matter what era it derives from. You may legitimately criticise data and evidence on any a number of levels, but the mere “age” of it is not one of them.

Given the age of the data the question "Does this still accurately reflect the nature of the phenomenon today?" must be asked. I submit that there are very good indicators that the nature of the phenomenon has changed somewhat. Physical descriptions, encounter frequency, craft behavior, and even flight characteristics.
This is a different and legitimate question. Has the nature of the phenomenon changed over time? If so what are the possible causal factors? These are good questions. However, to begin an exploration of that with “Given the age of the data…” is illegitimate (as noted above).

I know I am being rather vague and that is kind of intentional as I am trying to look at the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the granular details for this portion of my point.
How research questions are framed and the question of what evidence we base out opinions on is very important. It is perhaps okay to express opinions based on vague feelings about the data, but as is often shown in scientific research, our “common” or “folklaw” or “intuitive” feelings about things very often are proved to be inaccurate or just plain wrong. Properly constituted research and analysis is the only way we have to even approach what a true picture concerning the reality of the situation might be - and for the “bigger picture” a comparative analysis is in order (comparing the data from one point of time with another).

Anyway... Basically, i want to convey that I completely agree that useful information can be derived from analyzing the historical data contained in the study. However, I think that in order to be accurate in any analysis you must take close look at the evolution of the phenomenon over time.
In order to gain a picture of the phenomenon (or phenomena) over time one simply must do the analysis. Following such an analysis one may then be able to say things like, “This is what the UFO phenomenon looked like then and this is what it looks like now” (is it the same or different?) – but one cannot legitimately do that UNLESS one has actually undertaken the research. In that regard, can you actually point to any research that has shown the phenomenon (or phenomena) to actually have changed over time?

What I am trying to get at here in all of this is that BOTH ufologists and debunkers seem to be basing their opinions concerning the topic of UFOs on a set of completely unfounded assumptions – and I am here to challenge those assumptions – and wherever a challenge to those assumptions exists, an opportunity for research also exists. Lets do the research to find out what the “true” percentage of unknowns is. Lets do the research to find out if the phenomenon really has changed over time…

From my point of view, 5% truly and properly classified "unknowns" (meaning stringent measures were taken to source a report with excellent witness data) should be enough to warrant an academically honest inquiry. From an aviation safety standpoint, 5% unknown is a HUGE number.
Perhaps you are aware of the following report?

Roe, T. (2004) Aviation Safety in America: Under-Reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions. NARCAP Technical Report. Version 2, July 20 2004. (http://01ff97c.netsolhost.com/reports/008/TR8Bias1.htm)

But, I do think that the 21% number is too high. But, I will quickly concede that I have no empirical data to back this up. Mostly because of the failings of having any regulated and normalized collection and analysis agency/organization, no centralized database to aid in analysis, and no ability to correlate data points 3rd party datasources (USGS seismic Db's, Weather DB's, Solar activity DB's, etc), and no academic support and peer review process.
And there of course is the rub: No properly constituted or centralised data collection or peer review process. Ufologists are floundering around doing little bits here and there on whatever data set is available to them at the time with no real oversight whatsoever to ensure or determine either the accuracy of the data or representativeness of the conclusions. And that of course allows the debunkers step right on in through the gaping breach in protocol to decry the whole field as nonsense and pseudoscientific. And what is worse – they have a legitimate point to make! (though of course they take it too far and use it illegitimately to deny the evidence itself rather than using it legitimately as a criticism of the standard of research).

I will always trust an airline pilot of more than 20 years to identify or more to the point NOT identify something in the sky than the ubiquitous "Bob from Accounting". You will never convince me that these two guys have the same ability in recognizing aerial phenomenon. To me that notion is absurd.
Ah, but you see, you would perhaps be wrong again in that assumption. According to the research that has been conducted, “Bob from accounting” is perhaps just as legitimate an observer as an airline pilot. As Dr Alan J. Hynek notes: (apologies in advance - I have not worked out the table function in this forum yet...)

While examining the cases in Project Blue Book, my colleagues and I kept careful records of the occupations of witnesses (with special attention paid to the military and trained technicians of all kinds ) . The correlation between occupation and what was perceived--or misperceived-is extremely interesting, and appears below :

TABLE 1 1 .7-Witness Reliability as a Function of Occupation
Occupation% of Misidentification
Military Pilot
(single witness)88
(multiple witness)
76
Commercial pilot
(single witness)89
(multiple witness)79
Radar technicians
(multiple witness)78
Technical person
(single witness)65
(multiple witness)50
Other
(multiple witness)83

<tbody>
</tbody>

It would seem that, as a rule, the best witnesses are multiple engineers or scientists; only 50 percent' of their sightings could be classified as misperceptions. Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses (though they do slightly better in groups ) .What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one. Thus, it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft. But it should come as no surprise that a majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects.” (p.271 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/43531895/J-Allen-Hynek-The-Hynek-UFO-Report-1977)
 
Witness Reliability In UFO Sightings

With respect to the ability of the average person being able to differentiate something truly unknown from known manmade and natural phenomena, the average person is probably just as capable under certain circumstances, but less capable when the object is more ambiguous.

I've talked informally with hundreds of people over the years about their experiences and checked into a few local cases. I'm confident that only two local sightings I've heard personally represented something out of the ordinary, while all the rest were observations of distant aircraft lights, planets or birds.

But the really important factor with military or professional pilots is that they have credibility by way of something to lose if they fabricate reports. Bob in accounting won't get court martialed or fired for submitting a fake UFO sighting report, but an Air Force pilot could, and commercial pilots could also have been in trouble under Regulation JANAP 146:

208. Military and Civilian. Transmission of CIRVIS reports are subject to the U.S. Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Canadian Radio Act of 1938, as amended. [highlight]Any person who violates the provisions of these acts may be liable to prosecution thereunder.[/highlight] These reports contain information affecting the national defense of the United States and Canada. Any person who makes an unauthorized transmission or disclosure of such a report may be liable to prosecution under Title 18 of the US Code 793, Chapter 37, or the Canadian Official Secrets Act of 1939, as amended.

So although perceptually there may not be a lot of difference in a non-flight situation, the credibility factor goes way up for pilots subject to such rules. When you aren't dealing with the pros then you need to have some way of telling whether or not you think they are being honest, and I think that can only come from experience.

Certainly a guy like Hynek had spent many years investigating UFOs in both an official and non-official capacity. His gradual transformation from skeptical debunker to ufologist extraordinaire seems to have been based partially ( from what I've read and seen in interviews ) on the quality of everyday people ... the same people he had previously had a seemingly taken a rather elitist view toward. He learned how to gaugue the reliability and value of the human experience by talking to and getting a "feel for" real people instead of simply dismissing them. I know that isn't "scientific", but I still greatly respect it.

J.R. Murphy
USI Calgary
www.ufopages.com
 
Come on then ramjet get a case up here, not one from your other thread from over "there" i will go debunker, and i will be alot more politer than the "old queens" rabble.

A Bluebook case would be ideal for starters.
Give the case what you would consider a strangeness value from 1 to 10 and we will see how both our and others strangeness ratings compare after discussion.

Signed
Keen
Isle of man.

ps come on get the thread moving ffs.
 
Come on then ramjet get a case up here, not one from your other thread from over "there" i will go debunker, and i will be alot more politer than the "old queens" rabble.

A Bluebook case would be ideal for starters.
Give the case what you would consider a strangeness value from 1 to 10 and we will see how both our and others strangeness ratings compare after discussion.

Signed
Keen
Isle of man.

ps come on get the thread moving ffs.

Why not go "debunker" over the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)? I thought I might have got more comment about it, given the assumptions made and the extremely important implications...

Nvertheless, for your request I'll have to look up the Blue Book files - but in the meantime, how about this one?

The Nellis Range UFO Video (November 1994)
(http://www.roswellproof.com/Nellis_discussion.html)
(
)
 
i have read those links, and now i will see what else i can learn about the incident, firstly though i would like your confidence in the provenience of the footage expressed as a percentage value please.

At face value it looks interesting, he leans heavy on hastings work, how reliable is hastings work.

And although its a good read the author suggests many assumptions, and then further in makes further assumptions based on the previous assumptions, only a critiscism if the original assumptions are totally incorrect.

I will give this case a good looking at tho ramjet ta.
 
Video Comment

If I had to pick a conventional explanation, it looks a lot like a long range camera shot trying to keep a track on a distant rocket ... the odd shape being the rockets flares from its boosters. This shot was obviously not a typical daylight video shot, so the rocket contrail and other details may be obscured. Certain video camera sensors don't pick up the infra red as well as some film. Other cameras only pick up the infra red and leave out certain visible details. So far as I'm concerned it's just another blurry video of who knows what ... probably some distant rocket. What I'd like to see is the daylight film that Gordon Cooper says was taken of a saucer that landed during one of his test exercises.
 
Video Comment

i have read those links, and now i will see what else i can learn about the incident, firstly though i would like your confidence in the provenience of the footage expressed as a percentage value please.

At face value it looks interesting, he leans heavy on hastings work, how reliable is hastings work.

And although its a good read the author suggests many assumptions, and then further in makes further assumptions based on the previous assumptions, only a critiscism if the original assumptions are totally incorrect.

I will give this case a good looking at tho ramjet ta.
The primary assumption made is about the video’s provenance. However, to ask for confidence in its provenance as a percentage term is the wrong question. One either accepts the video as real based on the evidence we have or one does not. If you accept it, then you work from there to asses what the video might show, if you don’t accept the provenance, you write the whole thing off as (presumably) a hoax.

Unless the makers/distributors/leakers of the video come forward publicly – and that is highly doubtful given the heavy penalties applied against people who release government “secrets” – especially of a military nature - then we are forever left without a direct provenance.

I am inclined to accept the video as real – it has withstood the test of time and it seems to me that it would be very difficult to create it as a hoax at the time it must have been made… but that is of course a personal opinion only.

Both Rudiak (http://www.roswellproof.com/Nellis_discussion.html) and Powell (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part1/Part1.htm) have made independent assessments of the location shown in the video (based on the mountain peak with the radar domes) and have basically come to the same conclusions about the location.

There may be some doubt about the actual date of the video. For example Powell, in a reference note, states “14. Ref. 3, pg. 120. 'Real TV' dated the video to 1993, whilst a NICAP investigator believed the encounter took place on 30.9.1991.”

Here are the “original” Hard Copy video:
(http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/65206/HardCopy__Nellis_Ufo_Footage_Original_Release_1995/)

and Sightings video report:
(
)

And a perhaps a clearer copy of the object video:
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6821482599776880969)

So what is it? It certainly doesn’t seem like anything conventional…


If I had to pick a conventional explanation, it looks a lot like a long range camera shot trying to keep a track on a distant rocket ... the odd shape being the rockets flares from its boosters. This shot was obviously not a typical daylight video shot, so the rocket contrail and other details may be obscured. Certain video camera sensors don't pick up the infra red as well as some film. Other cameras only pick up the infra red and leave out certain visible details. So far as I'm concerned it's just another blurry video of who knows what ... probably some distant rocket. What I'd like to see is the daylight film that Gordon Cooper says was taken of a saucer that landed during one of his test exercises.
I am trying to see a rocket in this video, but just cannot do it. Also the radar trace seems to have it and then not have it – if it was a conventional rocket it would have it all the time surely… Also the fact that the operators don’t know what it is seems telling. Surely the operators would be given a schedule of potential tests and flights conducted – otherwise how are they expected to be alert for potential “enemy” intruders into the airspace if they first have to sort out whether it is one of ours or not? They would not have to know what exactly it is being tested, just that something would be there and not to worry because it IS one of ours… but of course that is just speculation on my part.

And I think we would all like to see a clear, unequivocal daylight video… but then those that do exist (and make no mistake, they do exist) are immediately labelled “hoax”… and the problem here is of course that the space has been flooded with hoaxes – and if I was a conspiracy nut (which I am not – but it is difficult sometimes not to be) – I would suggest this flooding of the space with hoaxes is a deliberate ploy to bury any videos that might be genuine under a mountain of garbage…
 
Video Comment

The primary assumption made is about the video’s provenance. However, to ask for confidence in its provenance as a percentage term is the wrong question. One either accepts the video as real based on the evidence we have or one does not. If you accept it, then you work from there to asses what the video might show, if you don’t accept the provenance, you write the whole thing off as (presumably) a hoax.

Unless the makers/distributors/leakers of the video come forward publicly – and that is highly doubtful given the heavy penalties applied against people who release government “secrets” – especially of a military nature - then we are forever left without a direct provenance.

I am inclined to accept the video as real – it has withstood the test of time and it seems to me that it would be very difficult to create it as a hoax at the time it must have been made… but that is of course a personal opinion only.

Both Rudiak (http://www.roswellproof.com/Nellis_discussion.html) and Powell (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part1/Part1.htm) have made independent assessments of the location shown in the video (based on the mountain peak with the radar domes) and have basically come to the same conclusions about the location.

There may be some doubt about the actual date of the video. For example Powell, in a reference note, states “14. Ref. 3, pg. 120. 'Real TV' dated the video to 1993, whilst a NICAP investigator believed the encounter took place on 30.9.1991.”

Here are the “original” Hard Copy video:
(http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/65206/HardCopy__Nellis_Ufo_Footage_Original_Release_1995/)

and Sightings video report:
(
)

And a perhaps a clearer copy of the object video:
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6821482599776880969)

So what is it? It certainly doesn’t seem like anything conventional…



I am trying to see a rocket in this video, but just cannot do it. Also the radar trace seems to have it and then not have it – if it was a conventional rocket it would have it all the time surely… Also the fact that the operators don’t know what it is seems telling. Surely the operators would be given a schedule of potential tests and flights conducted – otherwise how are they expected to be alert for potential “enemy” intruders into the airspace if they first have to sort out whether it is one of ours or not? They would not have to know what exactly it is being tested, just that something would be there and not to worry because it IS one of ours… but of course that is just speculation on my part.

And I think we would all like to see a clear, unequivocal daylight video… but then those that do exist (and make no mistake, they do exist) are immediately labelled “hoax”… and the problem here is of course that the space has been flooded with hoaxes – and if I was a conspiracy nut (which I am not – but it is difficult sometimes not to be) – I would suggest this flooding of the space with hoaxes is a deliberate ploy to bury any videos that might be genuine under a mountain of garbage…

The bolded bit first.
and an off-topic tangent, indulge mods please this one post.

I too consider myself level headed, and i have the same sentiments about 911 as you have with the hoax flooding vids, only i do not think anything other than 19 terrorists carried out an atrocity, all the conspiracy stuff that has flooded the net i sometimes think is all about mis-direction, basically do not wonder at who may have funded and provided their support network whilst in the states, most certainly do not look into the saudi connection, their aims and their goals, no look over here theres controlled demolition and viscous jews what did it, with bombs an all that clever stuff the the "mossad" do like remote control plane thingies.



......................................................................................................





Yes theres some good photographs out there alright, so good they have to be real ET craft, or fake/hoax pictures vids, so any sane person quickly dismisses them as hoax, rightly or wrongly, thats the way it is, as the leap/divide is just so great.

Fortunately there are people who will go to extraordinary lenghts to authenticate materials.


ufology i dont think thats camera shake as the object jumps about, the clouds and other land marks stay steady even when panning, so no rocket footage ive ever seen matches that for rockets jigging side to side, and up and down etc.

i was thinking its a simulated target in a range training exercise, with an erratic target to have to get and keep a lock-on, along the lines of a flight simulator.


The sightings piece about the close ups and similarities with the mexican balloons, sorry mexican UFOs i mean has me alittle puzzled as the afb footage is not a balloon.

As per the visual evidence, out of all the vids and pics only one has to be the genuine article, i will state my position on ET LIFE.

Does intelligent life exist anywhere else other than earth, almost certainly it does, my position is that i just dont know.
I am pretty confident life exists in space mind, so are nasa, thats why i am, simple really when man landed on the moon he brought life to the moon, when he left, he left life on the moon, he left it in half eaten food, and bags of pee and shite.
Will be interesting to see how the bacteria have mutated in that harsh enviroment, thats why nasa want niels shite back now, one small dump for a man, one massive dump for mankind.

And thats it really anything after that is a leap of faith, the one aspect i am a little open to about UFOs is that we as a semi intelligent species have been sending probes out for decades, and in a thousand years we will still be sending them out to explore further and further, with life spans of many centuries, infact our futuristic probes may well turn out to be other species UFOs, that they argue about really exist.

I am open to probe, even just one every 1000 years would indicate many other species over a billion years.
I think theres an unimaginable amount of space, and its been there for an unimaginable amount of time, for that first cell ever to form and then divide, here on earth as a unique event in the whole cosmos, i dont buy it, its a theory, cleverer people than me have come to that theory, i dont buy it, i think the planet was seeded by meteorite or similar, i dont need to prove it to myself, it just makes more sense to me than life uniquely forming on earth only.

I say unimaginable amount of time etc, i maybe wrong, maybe someone can imagine how long 13.5 billion years are, and also what it would be like to walk many googolplexes of miles, i am sure i cannot even begin to comprehend the enormities.

The reson i mentally dismiss UFOs containing entities, is because there would surely of been real interaction between our species, i dont buy all the philosophical crap about reasons why they just supposedly tantalize us with glimpses of them, they would be explorers, and they would explore us.
They would find us and our totally unique technology as fascinating as we would find them and their technology.
Assuming we would not be toxic to one another.
Thats why it would for me to believe actual beings are visiting this planet literally, i would have to see one, shoot some pool with it, and maybe get it drunk and swap a few genes with its sister, and feel ashamed as i bragged about it..
 
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Manxman, it seems to me that despite your stated familiarity with many of the cases I presented in that other place that shall remain nameless (LOL), there will be people here who may not know about the cases I presented and the information surrounding them. For example you had not seen the link to the Low memo I posted on page 1 here, stating it was an “eye opener”, so I think what I will do is just post some of those cases and informational links so that other people might have a chance to get that sort of experience of cases - and if people want to discuss them fine, if not I will simply move on…

Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (24 Oct 1886)

First published in Scientific American (18 Dec 1886), Vol. 55, No. 25, p.389.
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

An image of the SciAm edition the article appeared in:
(http://timelines.com/1886/10/24/the-maracaibo-incident)

Republished in NZ in Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7711, 6 April 1887, Page 4
(http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=HBH18870406.1.4&e=-------10--1----0--)

Minnesota MUFON Journal, Issue#88, Mar./Apr. 2001, p.2.
(http://www.mnmufon.org/mmj/mmj88.pdf)

What SciAm says about it now:
(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/12/aliens-get-higher-nielsen-ratings/)

Background information on Cowgill:
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/342.html)
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html)
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_199907/ai_n8860608/)

Other mentions:
Munday, J. C., Jr. (1972) Tentative analysis: Venezuelan aerial phenomenon of 1886 (Warner Cowgill, Scientific American, December 18, 1886, p. 389). Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, Tucson, AZ.

NICAP UFO chronology:
(http://www.nicap.org/waves/prior-47-19th.htm)
 
Again, note the time on the Nellis video. 23:20 ( 11:30 PM ). It must have been a night shot. The sensors for those kinds of cameras could make the rocket exhaust flare look like those points that give it the odd shape, and it would explain the fuzzy edges. The rocket would need to be heading downrange almost directly away from the camera, and if that were the case, the super hot rocket exhaust trail might cause issues with RADAR. Additionally, we're not seeing any performance characteristics indicative of a UFO.

The apparent sudden movements seem to be more because of the camera than the object. It's probably a genuine video of something, but is it a UFO ( as defined )? No, it's not. It's an unidentified airborne object ... that's about all we can say ... I think?

When we're done with this one I'd like to revisit an old case that everyone thinks is boring ... The DC sightings in 1952. I used to think they weren't worth discussing because I'd seen the famous lens flare photo and it made sense. Then I revisited it some years later and realized it was the same incident in Ruppelt's book and found some interesting clips. It's a convoluted case, but ultimately there is a major mystery there ... especially with the F-94 pursuits ... and one in particular.

Updated Definition of UFO

The UFO interest group USI ( www.ufopages.com) has proposed a new definition of ufology that moves away from early USAF definitions that define UFOs by what they are not, to a modern definition based on what we think they are. Detailed rationale for the new definition can be found on the USI website under the link for UFO: The basic rationale is as follows:
  1. The USAF only created the word UFO to replace the term flying saucers, which were deemed to have been alien craft. Consequently the official USAF definition of UFO is only a euphemisim for alien craft anyway.
  2. The most refined official USAF definition was AFR 200-2, Feb 05, 1958. It provides guidelines for screening out known natural and manmade objects from UFOs. If the objects aren't manmade or natural, what are they? Again we are left with the conclusion that unless they are hoaxes or hallucinations, they must be alien.
  3. UFOs have become deeply embedded in modern culture and the overwhelming number of portrayals and interpretations are not of mundane objects, but of alien craft.
  4. UFOs have become deeply embedded in our moder psyche. When someone says they saw a UFO, the imagery we see in our minds and the assumptions we make before we begin any analysis are that the person is talking about an alien craft.
  5. Alternate definitions that have been attempted in the past have proven pointless, and newer terms like UAP do not address what we are talking about. We aren't merely talking about anomalous objects and we shouldn't need to be reserved or aplologetic about what we're interested in. To use a favorite catch phrase of Stanton Friedman, why be apologist ufologists. Let's just tell it like it is.
Updated Definition:

UFO or ufo

Pronounciation: yoo-ef-oh ( plural UFOs ) or yoo-foe ( plural ufos ) noun
  1. A craft of alien origin.
  2. The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.
Word Origin: [ Mid-20th century (1952) acronym formed from the words unidentified flying object. ]

See the complete article on the word UFO including the origin and evolution of the definition and proper usage in various contexts here: http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/UFO-01a.htm
 
Again, note the time on the Nellis video. 23:20 ( 11:30 PM ). It must have been a night shot.
Agreed.

The sensors for those kinds of cameras could make the rocket exhaust flare look like those points that give it the odd shape, and it would explain the fuzzy edges. The rocket would need to be heading downrange almost directly away from the camera…
In such a case I believe the rocket exhaust flare would be too bright to allow any shape determination such as you mention. It would also be a bright spot, not a dark one… Here is another infrared video – definitely of a rocket…

(
)


…and if that were the case, the super hot rocket exhaust trail might cause issues with RADAR.
Possibly… but I am no expert. However, given that it is unlikely to have been a rocket, not only because the exhaust would be too bright to see details, but also its trajectory seems to change, unlike a rocket.

Additionally, we're not seeing any performance characteristics indicative of a UFO.
I think that is reaching a bit far. What ARE the performance characteristics of a UFO? How do you know that a UFO would not (or could not) perform exactly as shown in the video?

The apparent sudden movements seem to be more because of the camera than the object.
Have a look at the first few seconds of the video… The ground can be seen. The object moves to the left then comes back to the right.

The camera movements are also quite obvious against the background – at least before it zooms in… and before it does that the object also seems to travel from left to right and then to start ascending while also manoeuvring left and right as it does.

It's probably a genuine video of something, but is it a UFO ( as defined )? No, it's not. It's an unidentified airborne object ... that's about all we can say ... I think?
As you have defined… “an intelligent or intelligently controlled craft of alien origin”? I cannot accept that definition. It is impossible to determine the difference between one of those (as you define) and other types that do not fit that definition. What possible criteria could you use to determine if a UFO fits your definition?

UFOs as ET is a plausible explanation (science suggests that ETI should exist, science does not rule it out interstellar travel, there is observational evidence of intelligent control and associated beings) – but just because it is a plausible explanation, that does not mean it is the correct explanation in any given example. Again, how would one determine if it is an ET UFO – especially in the Nellis case? And critically, how do you determine that it is not an ET UFO (as you seem to do)?

When we're done with this one I'd like to revisit an old case that everyone thinks is boring ... The DC sightings in 1952. I used to think they weren't worth discussing because I'd seen the famous lens flare photo and it made sense. Then I revisited it some years later and realized it was the same incident in Ruppelt's book and found some interesting clips. It's a convoluted case, but ultimately there is a major mystery there ... especially with the F-94 pursuits ... and one in particular.
Post it and let’s see…

The UFO interest group USI ( www.ufopages.com ) has proposed a new definition of ufology that moves away from early USAF definitions that define UFOs by what they are not, to a modern definition based on what we think they are.

1. The USAF only created the word UFO to replace the term flying saucers, which were deemed to have been alien craft. Consequently the official USAF definition of UFO is only a euphemisim for alien craft anyway.
Again you have the problem of determining and distinguishing ET UFOs from all the other UFOs…

2. The most refined official USAF definition was AFR 200-2, Feb 05, 1958. It provides guidelines for screening out known natural and manmade objects from UFOs. If the objects aren't manmade or natural, what are they? Again we are left with the conclusion that unless they are hoaxes or hallucinations, they must be alien.
If the objects are not mundane in origin – based on particular AFR criteria, we still cannot conclude ET. There are (might be) unknown or undiscovered phenomena that might account for them…

3. UFOs have become deeply embedded in modern culture and the overwhelming number of portrayals and interpretations are not of mundane objects, but of alien craft.
Just because it looks like ET, does not mean it IS ET. Looks can be deceiving after all…

4. UFOs have become deeply embedded in our moder psyche. When someone says they saw a UFO, the imagery we see in our minds and the assumptions we make before we begin any analysis are that the person is talking about an alien craft.
That is a problem, not a solution. That the term UFO has become popularly synonymous with ET is a problem that people have been trying to get away from (the UAP of the UK Condign report for example). The UFO = ET assumption is perhaps (possibly) an unwarranted one. We just don’t know it for a fact… there is no definitive evidence…

5. Alternate definitions that have been attempted in the past have proven pointless, and newer terms like UAP do not address what we are talking about. We aren't merely talking about anomalous objects and we shouldn't need to be reserved or aplologetic about what we're interested in. To use a favorite catch phrase of Stanton Friedman, why be apologist ufologists. Let's just tell it like it is.
Oh I agree, we should not be apologetic if we believe that UFOs do equal ET. If that is what we believe then that is what we should state we believe. However, if that is what you believe then you have to be prepared to justify that belief – and as there is no definitive “proof”, then you end up stating that it is an opinion rather than a fact.

The way I approach it is that in certain cases we can rule out all known mundane causes – but then we are left with simply stating that a particular case defies plausible mundane explanation. I believe we cannot say more – but we definitely should not be dragged into saying less.
 
Hey There Ramjet:

Thanks for posting the falcon rocket launch. You can see the dark spots at first and then the rocket speeds across the field of view, not directly away. If the object the other video were a rocket heading directly away from the camera and radar, there would be only a point for the radar to bounce off of and it would be obscured by the hot exhaust. This would explain the radar problems and possibly even the dark spots. Plus the object in the other video seemed farther away, obscuring it even more. To me this new example tends to lend support to the rocket possibility rather than detract from it. But I definitely gotta hand it to you on finding that falcon video to make a comparison with.

Regarding performance characteristics of UFOs. We are talking about instant high-speed high-angle turns, dead stops from high-speeds and instant acceleration to hypersonic speeds. Those kinds of maneuvers aren't conventional, not that UFOs are obligated to present them, only that when such maneuvers are performed, it becomes really obvious as opposed to ambiguous.

Regarding the New Definition: “an intelligent or intelligently controlled craft of alien origin”. This definition is for describing what we are trying to convey, not as something we have proven. For example if someone says, "I want to see a meteor", we all know what that is meant to convey. Similarly when we hear someone say, "I want to see a UFO", we instantly associate it with a craft of alien origin. We understand what the person means to convey, and issues of proof, or whether or not we can actually "determine the difference between a UFO and other types that do not fit that definition" aren't relevant in that context. It is far better than what we see all too often in dictionaries that simply give "Unidentified Flying Object" as the definition, when that is not really a definition at all, and leaves the door open for misrepresentation by the skeptics. It also addresses the issue of the ET assumption you mention in that the word "alien" doesn't necessitate ET.

On the DC sightings I'd like to discuss the F-94 radar intercepts. Lieutenant William Patterson, a veteran of the Koren War, found his F-94 surrounded by a ring of bluish-white lights. He was not given permission to fire on them and they soon went into evasive maneuvers, instantly accelerating away beyond range. Are you aware of any official documentation on this? I found a news clipping and one Blue Book Archive document alluding to a similar chase.
 
Back
Top