The Growth of the UFO Myth

[Jack by the hedge]

I can remember getting into a debate with UFO skeptic, James Oberg years ago over the 1976 UFO incident. He said that failure of the avionics on both F-4's were common malfunctions that had nothing to do with flying saucers. His comment raised my eyebrow because the F-4 is an aircraft I had a lot of experience on [...] and knew that what Mr. Oberg had said was false.

Perhaps you had different ideas about likely explanations because you had different ideas about which systems actually malfunctioned on the aircraft.

 

[Rincewind]

Perhaps you had different ideas about likely explanations because you had different ideas about which systems actually malfunctioned on the aircraft.

Of course, it would have been much better if he'd given some details...

 

[skyeagle409]

Perhaps you had different ideas about likely explanations because you had different ideas about which systems actually malfunctioned on the aircraft.

The systems of both aircraft failed as they approached the UFO and only returned to operation after the aircraft turn away from the object. Avionic failures in the manner documented in the 1976 Iranian UFO incident do not fix themselves with a simple change of heading. James Oberg just brought that up for no other reason than to debunk the encounter, but Oberg knew what he was doing.

I might add that a third aircraft was affected as well.






.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It appears the Belgian "scientists" have retracted their claims that the UFOs were caught on radar.

It is important here to underline that the F-16 pilot saw no UFOs at all. I spoke with some of his friends who had laughed with him about the UFO hypothesis. Had it not been for the SOBEPS team, these so-called mysterious radar returns would have been labeled as ordinary “angels”. Another important thing is that at one point the “return” remained unchanged on the screen while the plane was maneuvring, which is indicative of an instrument failure. This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992. And this is also what I had written in an article that the ten scientists had chosen to add to their press-release in October 1991
Now, SOBEPS has published a second voluminous “report” about the so-called “Belgian UFO wave”. Not very surprisingly for those who were well informed, compelled as he was by the hard facts, professor Meessen distanced himself from his previous conclusions and admitted that very peculiar atmospheric conditions were probably the cause of the F-16 radar incident.

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The systems of both aircraft failed as they approached the UFO and only returned to operation after the aircraft turn away from the object. Avionic failures in the manner documented in the 1976 Iranian UFO incident do not fix themselves with a simple change of heading. James Oberg just brought that up for no other reason than to debunk the encounter, but Oberg knew what he was doing.

I might add that a third aircraft was affected as well.






.

That's one version of the story that can be drawn from the various accounts, but if you boil it down to the first plane having radio problems (in a similar location to one or more commercial planes also having such problems) and the second plane's pilot finding he was unable to launch a missile, although no fault was later found, and there's no record of his being given permission to fire a missile (over Tehran) and there's dispute that the claimant really was the pilot that day...



It starts off as a story where you just join the dots and it makes a picture of a flying saucer. But eventually there only appear to be about two meaningful dots.

 

[skyeagle409]

It appears the Belgian "scientists" have retracted their claims that the UFOs were caught on radar.

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

Apparently not. The data was supplied by the Belgian Air Force and has been confirmed. You should have read the rest of the story because the data I provided matched the radar screen in the following videos and that was a small hint that the data was authentic.

I have often warned skeptics about running to those skeptic websites because they are notorious for posting disinformation, misinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

Belgian UFO

Two F-16s were ordered to intercept and identify this phenomena, and one of the jet's radars locked the object in. It appeared as a small diamond on the pilot's screen. The pilot reported that only a few seconds after locking on the target, the object began to pick up speed, quickly moving out of radar range. An hour long chase ensued, during which time the F-16s picked up the strange craft's signal two additional times, only to see it fade from view. The triangular craft seemed to be playing a cat and mouse game, and finally was lost in the night lights of Brussels. The pilots of the fighters reported that the UFO had made maneuvers at speeds beyond the capability of their technology, and once the radar showed the craft almost instantly drop from 10,000 to 500 feet in 5 seconds!

These objects were seen by thousands of witnesses, many of whom gave signed statements to the police. They were photographed and filmed. The objects were tracked by ground radar at several different installations, and also by the on-board radar of the F-16s. The objects took evasive action when threatened by the F-16s and were able to maneuver at speeds that are impossible for any known aircraft.

Belgium Military F-16 Radar Lock-on Footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3geA2Jp-n0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI&t=135s

 

[skyeagle409]

That's one version of the story that can be drawn from the various accounts, but if you boil it down to the first plane having radio problems (in a similar location to one or more commercial planes also having such problems) and the second plane's pilot finding he was unable to launch a missile, although no fault was later found, and there's no record of his being given permission to fire a missile (over Tehran) and there's dispute that the claimant really was the pilot that day...

If your aircraft is in immediate threat, there is no time to obtain permission to fire. Here's the video of the Iranian pilot who attempted to fire on one of those UFOs in addition to the documents.

Video: Iranian F-4 Pilot: In His Own Words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370

Documentation

https://web.archive.org/web/2015092...s/Sighting_of_UFO_in_Iran_19_Sep_76_CLEAR.pdf

Another close example is the Coyote Canyon UFO landing that knocked out multiple radars.

Documented Kirtland AFB Flying Saucer Landing

An UFO landed in the Coyote Canyon area not far from Kirtland AFB in 1980, and later, it was determined that a strange jamming signal, which was knocking out radar systems, came from the area of the reported UFO landing site.

On 13 Aug 80, 1960 COMM Sq Maintenance Officer reported RADAR Approach Control equipment and scanner radar inoperative due to high frequency jamming from an unknown cause. Total blackout of entire RADAR approach system to include Albuquerque Airport was in effect between 1630-2215 hrs (4:30 PM-1015 PM). Radar Approach Control back up system also were inoperative.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION

The light traveled with great speed and stopped suddenly in the sky over Coyote Canyon. The three first thought the object was a helicopter, however, after observing the strange aerial maneuvers (stop and go), they felt a helicopter couldn't have performed such skills. The light landed in the Coyote Canyon area. Sometime later, three witnessed the light take off and leave proceeding straight up at a high speed and disappear.

The object was eventually tagged as an Unauthorized Aerial Object (UAO).

 

[Brainache]

Presumably all this UFO activity is known to the US government who are actively suppressing the information for some reason... I guess they think it will "blow our minds"...

How long until Donald Trump lets the UFO cat out of the bag? It might distract the press from his current mundane problems.

Any thoughts on why Trump hasn't said anything about all this Mr Skyeagle409?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Saw this today on CSPAN3: 20th Century UFO Conspiracies and found it fascinating.

Professor Felix Harcourt talked about how conspiracy theories about UFOs have shaped America culture. He began in the late 1940s and described how public opinion about extraterrestrials changed over the course of the 20th century, often paralleling societal anxieties.

You have the choice between reading the transcript or watching the lecture free streaming or a combination of the two. It's an hour well spent.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Apparently not. The data was supplied by the Belgian Air Force and has been confirmed.

By whom?

You should have read the rest of the story because the data I provided matched the radar screen in the following videos and that was a small hint that the data was authentic.

I'm an English teacher not a radar technician, and not remotely qualified to comment on the data you have posted.

I have often warned skeptics about running to those skeptic websites because they are notorious for posting disinformation, misinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

The last resort of the desperate: ooh, those evil skeptics!

Please supply a source for the quote. Then read this, from my link above:

During the Belgian UFO saga many people observed strange triangular formations in the skies. Some captured them with video cameras. Mr. Alfarano, from Bruxelles, took the most famous one but it is generally unknown that he also claimed to be in telepathic contact with alien entities. Even the SOBEPS now admits that none of these films shows anything strange or inexplicable. Most of them depict ordinary aircraft lights in a triangular configuration. Nevertheless, most of these people were convinced that they had seen the Belgian triangular UFO. In these cases their testimonies could be checked by examination of the filmed images. What about all those cases in which witnesses claimed to have seen a UFO but weren’t fortunate enough to capture it on film? Is there any reason to accept that they saw something else than those who filmed ordinary aircrafts? In the absence of relevant data it is often very difficult or impossible to identify what people have seen. SOBEPS takes advantage of this ambiguous situation and concludes that all unexplained observations are related to real UFOs, probably from an extraterrestrial origin. This is unscientific.
One can also doubt about the personal qualifications of the numerous improvised investigators SOBEPS worked with. Some of them were so blinded by their beliefs in UFOs they couldn’t even see the most evident things. For example here is a drawing made by a witness and which was published in Inforespace 86 as a true UFO. The testimony and the drawing show evidently it was an ordinary helicopter.

SOBEPS claims that thousands of people saw the Belgian triangle and maintains there is a remarkable COHERENCE in these numerous sightings. This magic word “COHERENCE” introduced by prof Meessen as soon as he worked with SOBEPS has been used again and again by SOBEPS collaborators to try to persuade us that identical objects were seen in Belgium by thousands of people. Look at the two books published by SOBEPS. In many cases, the objects described were triangles; but in all these testimonies, the only point of convergence is the WORD “triangle”. In reality all kinds of triangles were described, not only with very different angles but also with very different general structures and lights. In many cases people saw no triangular objects, but a quadrangle with four lights, a sphere or a disc surrounded with lights or even a rectangular platform as big as a football field reminiscent of science-fiction movies. People have also seen flying discs with cupolas, cigar or boomerang-shaped contraptions, symmetrical or asymmetrical complex geometrical shapes, and even something like an oval ship with paddle. That’s what SOBEPS calls “COHERENCE”!

Bluster will avail you naught: evidence is what you need.

 

[skyeagle409]

Presumably all this UFO activity is known to the US government who are actively suppressing the information for some reason... I guess they think it will "blow our minds"...

How long until Donald Trump lets the UFO cat out of the bag? It might distract the press from his current mundane problems.

Any thoughts on why Trump hasn't said anything about all this Mr Skyeagle409?

Not sure why, but other presidents have. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan rings a bell and wonder it that was the basis Reagan's so-called "ET speech" at the United Nations. I know that our intelligence and military services have documented UFO encounters. After all, there was a time when the Air Force ordered its own pilots to shoot down flying saucers if they refused to land and at the Air Force Academy, cadets were taught that UFOs were real and even mentioned UFO encounters involving Air Force pilots and even the former Soviet Union, but the public was not suppose to know that.

Ronald Reagan Sees a UFO

One night in 1974, from a Cessna Citation aircraft, one of America's most famous citizens saw a UFO.

There were four persons aboard the plane: pilot Bill Paynter, two security guards, and the governor of California, Ronald Reagan. As the airplane approached Bakersfield, California, the passengers called Paynter's attention to a strange object to their rear. "It appeared to be several hundred yards away," Paynter recalled. "It was a fairly steady light until it began to accelerate.

Then it appeared to elongate. Then the light took off. It went up at a 45-degree angle-at a high rate of speed. Everyone on the plane was surprised. . . . The UFO went from a normal cruise speed to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power, it will accelerate-but not like a hot rod, and that's what this was like."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/ronald-reagan-ufo.htm

 

[skyeagle409]

By whom?

I'm an English teacher not a radar technician, and not remotely qualified to comment on the data you have posted.

The last resort of the desperate: ooh, those evil skeptics!

Please supply a source for the quote. Then read this, from my link above:


Bluster will avail you naught: evidence is what you need.

Perhaps, you should do a background check on what you have just posted before I bring out the rest of the story. As I mentioned, the Belgian Air Force and radar experts have already verified the UFO in question as a craft.

Did you ever stop to think why the F-16s were scrambled in the first place? If you did, then you would have notice that what you have just posted is false. And once again, the F-16's radar data was backed by ground-based and dissimilar radars as well. Did I mention that the UFO was also verified by ground-based observers and that the Belgian UFO incidents lasted many months as thousands watched? Check it out.

The lead F-16 pilot summed it up that the object he and his wingman tracked continued to outmaneuver their aircraft. So once again, you have no case.

 

[steenkh]

Not sure why, but other presidents have.

Have what? They certainly have not exposed previous government exchanges of technology with ET beings, or the pickled remains of ETs from Roswell. Why do you think it is so? Every president comes out agreeing with the previous president's policy in this matter. The Russians have not clamoured for the U.S. to reveal its dealings with the ETs, and you sometime seem to imply that actually both countries have agreed to keep it all secret.

As Darat said, what about all the failed states? Why did the Iranians they not reveal the documents about UFOs after the revolution, and what about all the other countries where a radical change of leadership has taken place? How come that every government on Earth agree on this, despite the public belief in UFOs?

I know that our intelligence and military services have documented UFO encounters.

Probaly, but how can you be sure that they were extra-terrestrial in nature, and not just unknown?

After all, there was a time when the Air Force ordered its own pilots to shoot down flying saucers if they refused to land and at the Air Force Academy, cadets were taught that UFOs were real and even mentioned UFO encounters involving Air Force pilots and even the former Soviet Union

That may be so, but that is not evidence that flying aucers exist, only that the belief in flying saucers exist.

but the public was not suppose to know that.

And yet they know it, apparently. It seems to me that the Air Force is not very good at keeping secrets.

 

[skyeagle409]

Have what? They certainly have not exposed previous government exchanges of technology with ET beings, or the pickled remains of ETs from Roswell.

I wouldn't go that far.

BARRY GOLDWATER

Arizona

Committees:

Aeronautical & Space Sci. Armed Services

Preparedness Inv Subcommit

UNITED STATES SENATE

Tactical Air Power Subcomm

Washington D.C. 20510

N. S. Naval Petroleum Reserves Subcommittee

March 28, 1975

Mr. Shlomo Arnon U.C.L.A. Experimental College 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Mr.Arnon:

The subject of UFOs is one that has interested me for some time. About ten or twelve years ago I made an effort to find out what was in the building at Wright Patterson Air Force Base where the information is stored that has been collected by the Air Force, and I was understandably denied this request.

It is still classified above Top Secret. I have, however, heard that there is a plan under way to release some, if not all, of this material in the near future. I'm just as anxious to see this material as you are, and I hope we will not have to wait too much longer.

Sincerely.

Barry Goldwater

And,

US Military are using smart metals similar to those found at the Roswell Crash In 1947

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

 

[skyeagle409]

By whom?

I'm an English teacher not a radar technician, and not remotely qualified to comment on the data you have posted.

Well, I know about such technology and why I matched the radar data with the data depicted on the radar screen in the F-16, which is the reason why I have said the radar data depicts an alien craft based on its recorded maneuvering capability.

Once again, the data has been verified by multiple sources including radar experts. You might want to read the rest of the story and understand why the F-16's were scrambled in the first place.

Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report)

1.Introduction

a. This report gives an overall view of the reports from the concerned Air Force units and of the reports from ocular witnesses of the gendarmerie patrols, about the unknown phenomena watched in the air space (hereafter called UFOs), south of the axis Brussels-Tirlemont, during the night of March 30-31,1990. b. The observations, visual and radar, were of such a nature that the take off of two F-16 of the 1 J Wing has been decided, in order to identify these UFOs. c. This report has been established by Major Lambrechts, VS/3 Ctl-Met 1.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Well, I know about such technology and why I matched the radar data with the data depicted on the radar screen in the F-16, which is the reason why I have said the radar data depicts an alien craft based on its recorded maneuvering capability.

So you are the source of this data. Any corroboration, or do we just take your word for it?

Once again, the data has been verified by multiple sources including radar experts. You might want to read the rest of the story and understand why the F-16's were scrambled in the first place.

And once again, those sources have since retracted their verifications. Even your own link shows the jets were chasing ghosts. Try reading the links I post, rather than just repeating yourself.

 

[Pixel42]

If instrument readings indicate that an object was moving in a way which violates the laws of physics then clearly those readings are erroneous.

 

[steenkh]

I wouldn't go that far.

Barry Goldwater wanted access to something he had no clearance for, but we do not know if it was particularly interesting. The classified papers that you have published here have not been a smoking gun.

And that some UFOlogists think that modern materials are from the supposedly crashed saucer at Roswell is also not very convincing. Everything that has come from that source indicates a scam. If the UFOlogists think they are right, they could try to track the inventions, and see if they can be traced to scientists who worked at Roswell.

 

[Steve001]

When you have triangular flying vehicles hovering and maneuvering around the skies during the late 1800's and early 1900's, then stealth aircraft can definitely be ruled out. I like the old UFO case files because they cannot be explained away as high performance aircraft. Another old case was the Fatima UFO of 1917, which was photographed as tens of thousands of people watched as the object dance across the sky.





I have posted the old stories to make a point that the objects are not high performance aircraft much less celestial bodies. Remember, all it takes is just ONE authentic UFO confirmation and its game over. However, that conclusion has been made thousands of times from government sources and for me, that question has been answered as the object passed over my base in 1968, which was to say the least, an "eye-opener." Then, to be sent to another base that has been investigating UFOs that have interfered with our Minuteman missiles. Only years later, did I find out that the Air Force had confirmed the existence of ET during the 1940's and early 1950's. Were you aware of the Air Force's own admission that the UFOs were "Interplanetary spaceships?" You should have heard what the Air Force was teaching its cadets at the Air Force Academy about UFOs.

How many airliners did you notice flying at high altitude overhead today? Now, how many people noticed UFOs flying across the sky at 190,000 feet and above? NORAD knows but such information is soon tagged "CLASSIFIED."

Skeptics think that UFOs are silly but how silly is it for skeptics to say that a UFO which flew in formation with an aircraft and tracked on ground-based radar and observed by eyewitnesses on the ground before zooming off at 4000 mph in a climb was Venus? Does the Bariloche UFO incident ring a bell?

How about the UFO that tracked Ronald Reagan's airccraft before the UFO zoomed off in a climb at high speed over California? Could that UFO incident involving his aircraft be the basis for Reagan's so-called ET speech at the UN?

Skeptics don't think ufos are silly. What we think is silly is how easily folks convince themselves.

I see lots of aircraft flying overhead everyday and night. The last time I saw an unidentified flying object was over 40 years ago.

 

[skyeagle409]

So you are the source of this data. Any corroboration, or do we just take your word for it?

False! The Belgian Air Force was the original source of that data alone with the radar imagery that I also used to tied the data

And once again, those sources have since retracted their verifications. Even your own link shows the jets were chasing ghosts.

False! The radar data does not reflect radar ghost angels. Apparently, you've failed to read the report that multiple dissimilar ground-based radars not only confirmed the F-16's contacts, as confirmed by Lead, F-16 pilot, but the UFO in the sky was also confirmed by ground-based observers as well. In other words, multiple irborne and multiple and dissimilar ground-based radars, along with visual observations from the ground should have been clues to tell you that the UFO was not the result of radar ghost angels and another hint, the F-16's radar is an all-weather radar.

I expect skeptics to do their homework correctly instead of running to skeptics websites.