Merged Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program UFO'S

[Matthew Ellard]

Let me put it in another way. I challenge, or perhaps I should say, I DARE UFO skeptics to do their own research from credible sources

We have. That's how we have been debunking your lies. That's why you can't answer any direct questions and supply citations or links.

Now start answering direct questions.

 

[skyeagle409]

No you don't. You make up lies on the spot and get caught lying. We are going to systematically work through the lies you made in this thread.

3) When was Ian Ridpath debunked "numerous times"? Link us to one debunk.

Let's go here.

Ian Ridpath

SUMMARY
Although the overall case is complex, the main aspects can be summarized as follows:
1. Security guards saw bright lights apparently descending into Rendlesham Forest around 3 a.m on 1980 December 26. A bright fireball burned up over southern England at the same time.

No fireball came down in the Rendlesham forest that night or any other night for that matter.

2. The guards went out into the forest and saw a flashing light between the trees, which they followed until they realized it was coming from a lighthouse (Orford Ness).

How long has that lighthouse been in operation? What caught the attention of security at the East Gate in the first place? It couldn't have been the light from the lighthouse because lights from the lighthouse cannot be seen from the East Gate and I have provided photos of the lighthouse and even a map as to why it was impossible to see lights from the lighthouse from the East Gate, and confirmed to me personally by those who were there.

3. After daybreak, indentations in the ground and marks on the trees were found in a clearing. Local police and a forester identified these as rabbit scrapings and cuts made by foresters.

The landing pods were equally spaced and 7 inches in diameter. Plaster was used and it was determined that radiation readings were higher at the landing site around the depressions vs. the surrounding area.

4. Two nights later the deputy base commander, Lt Col Charles Halt, investigated the area. He took radiation readings, which were background levels. He also saw a flashing light in the direction of Orford Ness but was unable to identify it.

Two nights they and they continued to confuse a lighthouse as a UFO in the forest or UFOs in the sky? The fact that the Rendlesham incident occurred on multiple nights effectively rules out the lighthouse as responsible.

And, base personnel were well-aware of the location of the lighthouse and the lighthouse does not explain the lights in the sky or that object that was tracked overflying both bases before contact was lost over Rendlesham forest. Even wondered why light-alls were used with their lights pointing outward from the forest rather than toward the location where investigations were being conducted?

5. Col Halt reported seeing starlike objects that twinkled and hovered for hours, like stars. The brightest of these, which at times appeared to send down beams of light, was in the direction of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.

At its most basic, the case comes down to the misinterpretation of a series of nocturnal lights – a fireball,...

Ian seems to forget the maneuvering objects across the sky could not have been a fireball nor a lighthouse that couldn't be seen from the East Gate.

... and some stars.

How long have stars been in the sky over the area before the Rendlesham incident broke in 1980? Is Ian trying to be funny?

 

[Bubba]

So when General/Admiral so and so of Wright Patterson or whichever facility/incident (take your pick), since the 1940s, supposedly said interplanetary this and extraterrestrial that, what's going on? Including the various other military, pilots, etc saying ET or visitors or however they put it.

Or did they not even say those things....

 

[smartcooky]

Let's go here.

No fireball came down in the Rendlesham forest that night or any other night for that matter.

How long has that lighthouse been in operation? What caught the attention of security at the East Gate in the first place? It couldn't have been the light from the lighthouse because lights from the lighthouse cannot be seen from the East Gate and I have provided photos of the lighthouse and even a map as to why it was impossible to see lights from the lighthouse from the East Gate, and confirmed to me personally by those who were there.

The landing pods were equally spaced and 7 inches in diameter. Plaster was used and it was determined that radiation readings were higher at the landing site around the depressions vs. the surrounding area.

Two nights they and they continued to confuse a lighthouse as a UFO in the forest or UFOs in the sky? The fact that the Rendlesham incident occurred on multiple nights effectively rules out the lighthouse as responsible.

And, base personnel were well-aware of the location of the lighthouse and the lighthouse does not explain the lights in the sky or that object that was tracked overflying both bases before contact was lost over Rendlesham forest. Even wondered why light-alls were used with their lights pointing outward from the forest rather than toward the location where investigations were being conducted?

Ian seems to forget the maneuvering objects across the sky could not have been a fireball nor a lighthouse that couldn't be seen from the East Gate.

How long have stars been in the sky over the area before the Rendlesham incident broke in 1980? Is Ian trying to be funny?

None of this answers Matthew Ellard's question. This is just your bare, unsupported assertions, and sorry, but you are not a credible source for anything.

Where are the links to other debunking of Ian Ridpath? And this time, independent, verifiable and reliable sources please, not Flying Saucer nutcase websites!

 

[smartcooky]

And as for Roswell, there is no doubt whatsoever that what came down on the Foster ranch was the remains of a Project Mogul balloon train. It fits the description (down to the smallest details) the flight path and the dates.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/roswell_incident_and_project_mogul

The September 1994 Air Force report indicates that the Brazel debris also made its way to Wright Field. During an Air Force interview of Mogul participant Colonel Albert C. Trakowski, he recalled a July 1947 telephone call from Colonel Marcellus Duffy, who was stationed at Wright Field and was intimately knowledgeable about both Project Mogul and military weather equipment. Duffy told Trakowski that a fellow from New Mexico came to Dayton, woke him up in the middle of the night, and showed him the debris. Colonel Duffy told the fellow, “It looks like some of the stuff you've been launching at Alamogordo.”

What is the bottom line on the Roswell Incident, NYU, and Project Mogul? In Moore’s words, “When the wind information is coupled with the similarities in the debris described by the eyewitnesses—the balsa sticks, the ‘tinfoil,’ the tape with pastel, pinkish-purple flowers, the smoky gray balloon rubber with a burnt odor, the eyelets, the tough paper, the four-inch-diameter aluminum pieces and the black box—to the materials used in our balloon flight trains, it appears to me that it would be difficult to exclude NYU Flight 4 as a likely source of the debris that W. W. Brazel found on the Foster ranch in 1947.”

Additionally, the argument that there was no balloon flight launched on June 4, 1947 simply does not stack up. Not only are there people who actually worked on the Project Mogul balloon trains and and remember the dates of their launches, there is a very good reason why there might be no official record of some launches.

Moore, professor emeritus of physics at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, was a graduate student working for NYU back in 1947. The Mogul project was so classified and compartmentalized that even Moore didn’t know the project’s name until Robert Todd informed him of it a couple of years ago. The unclassified purpose of the project was to develop constant-level balloons for meteorological purposes.

While UFO proponents allege a lack of contemporary references to “Project Mogul Balloon Flights,” Moore says the project was so compartmentalized that such references simply may not exist. Any mention of these flights will instead be labelled as NYU constant-level balloon research.

 

[John Jones]

So when General/Admiral so and so of Wright Patterson or whichever facility/incident (take your pick), since the 1940s, supposedly said interplanetary this and extraterrestrial that, what's going on? Including the various other military, pilots, etc saying ET or visitors or however they put it.

Or did they not even say those things....

Another alternative: They were mistaken.

How does being a general or admiral make them authorities on extraterrestrial whatever?

Appeals to ignorance are not sufficient,

 

[John Jones]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12132771&postcount=285

While UFO proponents allege a lack of contemporary references to “Project Mogul Balloon Flights,” Moore says the project was so compartmentalized that such references simply may not exist. Any mention of these flights will instead be labelled as NYU constant-level balloon research.

Indeed they were. I've seen some of the FOIA documents SkyEagle409 refers to ( believe I got them from him). They refer to NYU flights.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...According to the video, tell us all who released the video in 2004? What did one of the pilots say?


NAVY PILOTS UFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RlbqOl_4NA

.

Circular argument.

This appears to be a YouTube copy of the BBC's copy of the same unprovenanced To The Stars etc. video that's been discussed ad nauseam. Its caption repeating the claim that it was "Released by the Department of Defense" is not in fact corroboration of that claim. Just a repeat of it.

There does not appear to be any evidence of that video being released by the Department of Defense beyond the say-so of the UFO chasers using it for publicity while seeking funding. Do you claim otherwise?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"... 1. Security guards saw bright lights apparently descending into Rendlesham Forest around 3 a.m on 1980 December 26. A bright fireball burned up over southern England at the same time."

No fireball came down in the Rendlesham forest that night or any other night for that matter.

I detect a mismatch between these competing claims. Can you spot it?

Also, I am curious to know how you can be so certain that no fireball came down in the forest that night or any other. Is it because the people who officially track such things have handed you their incontrovertible evidence and it only shows flying saucers and no fireballs? If only you could show us, but sadly we must do our own research.

 

[John Jones]

No, I mean that CNN had it's own message board, and one of the sections was about Roswell and the AF's 1994 reports.

You post like some guy there who called himself Aubry. That was you, wasn't it? Aubrey faxed me some FOIA documents, and I scanned and posted them on my web site so everyone could see them.

Was that you?

Bump

 

[Steve001]

We ignore it because it's the same garbage that's already been debunked over and over and over again, as you would know if you had been following these threads as long as some of us oldtimers.

How many times does the same nonsense need to be debunked before it becomes OK to just ignore it, Bubba?

As frustrating as it is, each new generation necessarily requires to be told. Then there are those that won't ever take "NO" FOR an answer.

 

[Bubba]

by Bubba View Post
So when General/Admiral so and so of Wright Patterson or whichever facility/incident (take your pick), since the 1940s, supposedly said interplanetary this and extraterrestrial that, what's going on? Including the various other military, pilots, etc saying ET or visitors or however they put it.

Or did they not even say those things....

Posted by John Jones
....How does being a general or admiral make them authorities on extraterrestrial whatever?...

Being high up on the info chain could make a difference depending on what is classified in the info chain, but aside from that who then (and how) would make them (or anyone) an authority in your view? What criteria would qualify them?

 

[Pixel42]

Nobody is an authority on extra terrestrial spacecraft, Bubba, because nobody has ever had even a single example of an extra terrestrial spacecraft to study.

 

[John Jones]

Being high up on the info chain could make a difference depending on what is classified in the info chain, but aside from that who then (and how) would make them (or anyone) an authority in your view? What criteria would qualify them?

Nobody.

 

[BStrong]

Not only have I served in Vietnam, at Hill AFB, UT, Travis AFB, CA. and TDY in Thailand, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ., Andrews AFB, the Philippines, Guam, Japan, Okinawa, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA., Corpus Christ Army Depot, but I have been invited by the VA in the past to speak before its groups in San Francisco CA. and Oakland, CA. Even the Air Force has me covered and once again you can find me on the Internet.

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...tion-of-highway-dedicated-to-tuskegee-airmen/

How so? The Lt col. in the pic died in 2014, so that's not you and none of the other names mentioned in the article come back to anything related to UFO's.

How about explaining how that article about the Tuskegee Airman has anything to do with you.

 

[BStrong]

So when General/Admiral so and so of Wright Patterson or whichever facility/incident (take your pick), since the 1940s, supposedly said interplanetary this and extraterrestrial that, what's going on? Including the various other military, pilots, etc saying ET or visitors or however they put it.

Or did they not even say those things....

Mistaken identification, confirmation bias, etc.

 

[Hans]

As frustrating as it is, each new generation necessarily requires to be told. Then there are those that won't ever take "NO" FOR an answer.

Yep, I was interested in fringe, pseudo science and UFO in the late 60's but I grew up! I did see two UFO's one remains mysterious (to me) the other many years later I resolved when I saw the same thing - it was birds circling above a well lite outdoor festival.

I stopped debating UFO fanatics in the late 90's it just became a game of endless repetition, intellectual whack a mole.

 

[fibbermcgee]

Skyeagle what was your MOS and rank in the Air Force?

 

[Pacal]

One of the things I find fascinating about people who think UFO's are Alien Spacecraft of some kind is the similarity between the "evidence" for it and for the European Witchcraze.

For example:

1), In both cases much was made of the fact that many / most of the witnesses to it were sane, rational people not given to hallucinations, hysteria etc.

In case of the Witchcraze those who doubted the phenomena pointed out that much of the evidence came from people who were either crazed or tortured. But the Witchhunters said many / most of the people involved were perfectly sane and many were not even arrested but sought out the Witchhunters and calmly and rationally confessed to being Witches.

And these rational calm, uncoerced, people rationally and calmly talked about taking part in the Black Mass, the pact with Satan, flying through the air to the Witches Sabbat, sex with Satan, etc. How cried the Witchhunters could the skeptics reject such calm, rational evidence produced, by fine upstanding people like Lawyers, prosperous Merchants, Priests etc?

2) Firther the Witchhunters like modern UFO enthusiasts say if these accounts are the result of hysteria, fantasy etc., how come they are so similar to each other? How could accounts converge and seemlt support each other if it was all BS?

Thus the Witchhunters would refer to accounts in which two people who didn't know each other would describe seemly the same Witches Sabbat. How could this be if it was fantasy / nonsense?

3) Physical evidence Both UFO and the WitchHunters asserted that if properly interpreted there was physical evidence for their phenomena. In both cases broken branches, patches of ground that became "inexplicably" bare etc., were evidence of Witchcraft or UFOs as Alien craft.

4) And in both cases if you failed to accept the interpretation of the "evidence etc., like UFOs are spacecraft proponents, the Witchhunters asserted that showed you were closeminded and not open to possibilities that were clerarly indicated. ASo you has a skeptic needed to open your mind and not "dogmatically: reject the notion that Witches flew to the Sabbat where they celebrated a Black Mass, had sex with Satan, sacrificed babies bred for sacrifice, (All trace of being pregnant magically erased by Satan, and the Witches conjurted spells to summon even more demons bring on storms and plague etc. If you didn't accept that has a possibility that indicated you were claseminded and dogmatic and nort willing to look at the evidence.

5) Both UFO proponents of them being Alien spacecraft and the Witchhunters would concede that many of th cases were the result of hysteria, delusion, misperception etc., but there was always that unexplained residue that could not be explained in those ways so of course it must mean thast some of the UFOs are Alien Spacecraft and to the Witchhunters that Witches were absoloutely real, along with the pact with Satan etc.

Of course it turned out that the whole European Witchcraze was indeed a collective mass delusion. The whole Witches Sabbat fantasy was just that a fantasy. I suspect the UFO has Alien spacecraft is a similar fantasy.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

PC Brian Cresswell : (Inspected the rabbit scrapings) "There were three marks in the area which did not follow a set pattern. The impression made by these marks were of no depth and could have been made by an animal.”
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

"Forester Vince Thurkettle – who lived in the forest at the time of the incident – also visited the landing site about six weeks later after hearing rumours about a UFO landing. He too was left unimpressed by what he saw. Thurkettle said the three depressions found by the USAF airmen in the clearing resembled holes produced by burrowing animals."
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

"As for the radiation detected at the “landing site” three independent scientific experts, including the makers of the Geiger counter, have since stated there was nothing unusual in the levels recorded by Halt’s team in the forest. They were simply background levels that would be expected in a pine forest."


Here are two lies.

The landing pods were equally spaced and 7 inches in diameter. Plaster was used and it was determined that radiation readings were higher at the landing site around the depressions vs. the surrounding area.

You are directly lying again. Name the person who took subsequent radiation levels and found them higher than the normal background radiation. You simply lied.

For entertainment purposes, here is a photo of the three rabbit scrapings in discussion. Skyeagle will now explain why the grass isn't even bent in his magical 7 inch diameter landing marks.