Merged U.S.O.'s...what if...

[Agno]

This may be a little off-topic but...

It seems to me that you could interpret some bible passages as UFO's:

For example, did you ever see a TV at a distance late at night? It flickers and blinks in an odd way, it looks a little like a fire. Now think about how a primitive person might describe it...a burning bush? That would be the only frame of reference he might have. It's fairly small, it's flickering and flashing like a fire. He would really have no frame of reference at all so he would try to make one up based on what he does have references for. So if maybe the alien Jehovah was out cruising around Mars or somewhere and didn't have time to drop in on Moses, maybe he'd placed a video terminal nearby to contact him.

And the cloud and the pillar of fire? A flying saucer?

Jesus rose into the clouds on a ray of light? Beam me up Scotty?

Now I'm not saying I believe any of that, but it makes at least as much sense as the normal explanation. It's something to think about.

 

[King of the Americas]

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I think arthwollipot has a good point. Unusual claims require good and credible evidence. I remember reading a few lines from Stephen Hawking when he mentioned coming up with a solid theory. He said that what a good thinker has to do is have the theory before him and visualize it as a boat on the water. Then you have to do everything in your power to sink it. When it absolutely cannot be sunk then you really have something. He wasn't referring to paranormal claims but I think similar standards should apply. Blurry photos, anecdotes, and questionable artifacts are not proof. They are too easily "sunk."

After so many decades of "evidence" but nothing really substantial that can stand up to rigourous scrutiny makes me despair that the phenomena will ever be shown to be true. I'd love it to be, and the subject interests me deeply. But speaking for myself, I'd need more. I'm not sure just what, but not blurry, possibly doctored photos, and highly questionable videos, and anecdotes.

I will conceed that there is evidence of the sort you named, that easily 'sunk'...

But my claim is that there is NO END to the evidence we have at hand, that 'features' U.F.O.'s...from the beginning of the time we wrote on cave walls, to today...in EVERY form of media you care to name.

The point?

One should not dismiss the whole, for the defective part.

 

[Astrophotographer]

In the Larry King broadcast also linked above, you'll find footage of a missle test that was foiled by a U.F.O. that traveled at 8000 mph, shot out a plasma beam, and then retreated using the same path it did to arrive at the missle/target.

Sigh...this is the infamous big SUR UFO. There is no "footage" available that I know of but Kingston George describes what really happened that day. You can read all about the real story at my site:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/bigsur.html

According to Kingston George, the footage was destroyed long ago as per normal routine for the destruction of classified materials. If there is footage of this please feel free to provide a link. My guess is the footage shown was some form of computer animation or a film of something else.

 

[King of the Americas]

This may be a little off-topic but...

It seems to me that you could interpret some bible passages as UFO's:

For example, did you ever see a TV at a distance late at night? It flickers and blinks in an odd way, it looks a little like a fire. Now think about how a primitive person might describe it...a burning bush? That would be the only frame of reference he might have. It's fairly small, it's flickering and flashing like a fire. He would really have no frame of reference at all so he would try to make one up based on what he does have references for. So if maybe the alien Jehovah was out cruising around Mars or somewhere and didn't have time to drop in on Moses, maybe he'd placed a video terminal nearby to contact him.

And the cloud and the pillar of fire? A flying saucer?

Jesus rose into the clouds on a ray of light? Beam me up Scotty?

Now I'm not saying I believe any of that, but it makes at least as much sense as the normal explanation. It's something to think about.

Off topic, but I am glad you brought it up...

The 'god(s)' mentioned in religious texts the world over...

Aren't these really U.F.O.'s??? Given that we really don't know what angels and the like were 'made' of, or where they came from or 'what' they really are...?

 

[King of the Americas]

Sigh...this is the infamous big SUR UFO. There is no "footage" available that I know of but Kingston George describes what really happened that day. You can read all about the real story at my site:

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/bigsur.html

According to Kingston George, the footage was destroyed long ago as per normal routine for the destruction of classified materials. If there is footage of this please feel free to provide a link. My guess is the footage shown was some form of computer animation or a film of something else.

Download the whole of that LK show, and you'll see the images they showed.

I still haven't been able to find the public download of the original.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Download the whole of that LK show, and you'll see the images they showed.

I still haven't been able to find the public download of the original.

How can I download it if it does not exist? I did a little research on the Big Sur event. Nobody has the actual film as it was destroyed. I am not sure what they showed but it was not the film. If you can refute that please do with a link to the film. Otherwise, I think Kingston George's explanation is accurate.

 

[Astrophotographer]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/20/lkl.ufo.long.cnn

I saw the clip you are referring to but it is an animation created for a UFO movie "Out of the blue". It is not the original images. As Kingston George stated, that was destroyed years ago long before Jacobs started telling his story.

 

[King of the Americas]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/20/lkl.ufo.long.cnn

I saw the clip you are referring to but it is an animation created for a UFO movie "Out of the blue". It is not the original images. As Kingston George stated, that was destroyed years ago long before Jacobs started telling his story.

Destroyed...?

And what pretell did it feature?

From the link your provided:

"...We carried a canister containing a thousand feet of 35mm black-and-white film (at that time, video was recorded by a synchronized film camera viewing a kinescope) to Vandenberg AFB, processed it, and began showing it with some excitement to the Atlas missile development people.

The reaction was startling! Soon after the first showing to the director of operations, all the top brass at Vandenberg had seen it and a copy was being made to fly to HQ Strategic

Air Command at Omaha. The classification was quickly changed from Secret to Top Secret. Buzzing Bee had opened an entirely new chapter in ICBM tactical thinking."

Further down is written:

"...As might be expected, the military reaction came swiftly. Everyone who was at the telescope site or had seen the film had to be identified. All, including Jacobs and myself, had to be questioned on what they had seen and what they thought it meant. Each was cautioned not to mention what was on the film to anyone and not to discuss it with others -- even fellow workers who had originally seen it at the same time! None of us had more than a guess at the meaning, and the civilian intelligence experts who did the "debriefing" gave no hints.

Weeks later, my clearance level was increased to allow me to see the films again and analyze them. I don't think Bob Jacobs ever gained the required clearance. The people later assigned to operate the equipment and carry the films around were subsequently cleared to the required level. The Top Secret film was marked for downgrading and declassification after 12 years, but its utility was over after a few months. Top Secret storage is too difficult and expensive for keeping items of dubious worth, and the film and related materials were all destroyed long before the 12 years were up. Only a few of us even remember the incident today, and Bob Jacobs is being both safe and cagey in observing that the Air Force denies the existence of the film or other hard evidence."

ALL the copies of the film were 'destroyed', after bing marked for de-classification.

So EVERYONE was de-briefed, and told NOT to speak about it even between themselves, and you had to have Top Secret clearance, to review the recordings, after the fact.

And nothing about all of this seems as though something was being hidden???

Question:

Why the two orders?

If there was nothing in it, and it was to be de-classified, why order its destruction?

UNLESS it did contain 'something' that could not be explained

Here's Bob Jacobs' version of the event:

http://www.nicap.org/bigsur2.htm

Kingston Geroge's article appear in the Skeptical Inquirer in '93, and remarks in it that he doesn't "think" Jacobs ever saw the original footage. "T. Scott Crain, Jr." refutes that claim:

http://www.nicap.org/bigsur1.htm

 

[Astrophotographer]

Destroyed...?

And what pretell did it feature?

Exactly what Kingston George says it contained. Didn't you read the story?

So EVERYONE was de-briefed, and told NOT to speak about it even between themselves, and you had to have Top Secret clearance, to review the recordings, after the fact.

And nothing about all of this seems as though something was being hidden???

Of course something was hidden but it wasn't a UFO blasting a warhead away as claimed.

If there was nothing in it, and it was to be de-classified, why order its destruction?

Standard routine for all classified materials. They are retained for so long and then eventually destroyed once declassified. They do not keep records forever. On my sub, we used to retain operating logs for 6 months and then destroyed them. They were confidential records. Other operating logs were kept for the life of the reactor core or for the life of the ship. When the core was refueled, those operating logs were destroyed three years after the core was refueled. I am not familiar with the ships operating logs but my guess is most were destroyed when the ship was decomissioned. The same thing happened here. Through normal routine the film was destroyed. I am sure you something peculiar about it but there is nothing unusual if you are familiar with the way classified records are retained. George wrote in his article:

The Top Secret film was marked for downgrading and declassification after 12 years, but its utility was over after a few months. Top Secret storage is too difficult and expensive for keeping items of dubious worth, and the film and related materials were all destroyed long before the 12 years were up.

He explains the reason for the destruction. Make it into a conspiracy if you like but his explanation is reasonable.

UNLESS it did contain 'something' that could not be explained

Of course you can believe that and Jacobs but there is no evidence that it is true and Kingston George was present and was familiar with the event. George even emailed me some pics he took through the telescope of the moon (I recall it being a shot of the crater Copernicus - it is somewhere in my many computer files on these subjects). Pretty cool stuff for the time period in question.

Kingston Geroge's article appear in the Skeptical Inquirer in '93, and remarks in it that he doesn't "think" Jacobs ever saw the original footage. "T. Scott Crain, Jr." refutes that claim:

Crain is a MUFON investigator and not really a credible and independent source. He quotes Mannsman who was there but was ill at the time of the interview. He had to recall events over two decades previously. Also George said he did not think that Jacobs saw the film. He did not categorically state that Jacobs did not see the film.

As for the NICAP website, you missed the opening paragraph where it is stated:

The opinion of some serious researchers on our team, however, suggests that the telescope imaging system was not adequate enough to produce the results described by Jacobs and Mannsman. However, four people who were involved in this type imaging attest to it being "remarkably successful".

Richard Hall found the explanation for the Big Sur UFO adequate enough that he removed the Big Sur UFO story from his book "UFOs the best evidence II" (at least he said so in the email exchange I read).

As George clearly stated, you could not resolve the warhead but you could see it as a point of reflected light:

The image of the warhead, even if viewed exactly side-on, would be less than six-thousandths of an inch long on the image orthicon face, or between two and three scan lines. We could not resolve an image of the warhead under these conditions; what is detected is the specular reflection of sunlight: as though caught by a mirror. Practically all the data collected by the B.U. Scope on hard objects was through specular reflection.

So, we have two versions of the event. One states that the telescope was able to identify decoy warheads and, as a result, the whole film was classified. Another story states it was a UFO/alien spaceship destroying a warhead with a laser. Which is more likely? Believe Jacobs all you want but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that George's story is more likely.

 

[King of the Americas]

So, we have two versions of the event. One states that the telescope was able to identify decoy warheads and, as a result, the whole film was classified. Another story states it was a UFO/alien spaceship destroying a warhead with a laser. Which is more likely? Believe Jacobs all you want but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that George's story is more likely.

Actaully we have 2 versions of the story, but 3 witnesses...

Mannsman verified Jacobs' story, in writing, before he passed away.

We have NO evidence of either sides' claim, because it has been destoryed.

In the end, we have 3 men, one who claims the other two are lying or merely very mistaken, all 3 of which were present and intimately familiar with the technology used.

If everything went as planned, and no object was caught on the film, then why the upgrade to Top Secret? Why the secretive debriefing? Surely a normal failure, should be a possible expected outcome?

I don't think this event, the actions taken by the military, or the fact that records were declassified & destroyed prove anything...and I certainly don't think George's opinions or recollections prove Jacobs and Mannsman in error either.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actaully we have 2 versions of the story, but 3 witnesses....

I guess you should include all those involved and who saw the film as well. They have not stepped forward and reported seeing anything unusual. The absence of their testimony indicates that nothing unusual happened. Don't give that "sworn to secrecy" nonsense either. If Jacobs can come forward without retribution, all the others could too.

Mannsman verified Jacobs' story, in writing, before he passed away.

And this proves????? Nothing. Mannsman could have been just as mistaken as Jacobs. Perhaps Jacobs called him and told him he needed an old friend to deliver a favor. We really don't know for sure do we?

We have NO evidence of either sides' claim, because it has been destoryed.

Correct for once. However, if it were an alien attack, wouldn't there been tons of documents discussing the event extensively? The upper chain would be concerned about the alien spaceship that could disable their warheads. The lack of any communications regarding this test (an UFOlogists have FOIA'd the heck out of it) indicates that it was classified for the reasons given by George and NOT for the reasons given by Jacobs. There is not one iota of documentation in the record that supports his version of events other than the 20+ year old memories of another man, who may have been lying or couldn't accurately recall the event.

If everything went as planned, and no object was caught on the film, then why the upgrade to Top Secret? Why the secretive debriefing? Surely a normal failure, should be a possible expected outcome?

Sigh...you really haven't read Kingston George's story have you? The sudden upgrade to top secret has to do with what was revealed by the film from the telescope. That being one could determine the difference between the decoys and the true warhead. Obviously, the flight went as planned but what didn't happen as planned was the ability of the telescope to track and see what was happening.

I don't think this event, the actions taken by the military, or the fact that records were declassified & destroyed prove anything...and I certainly don't think George's opinions or recollections prove Jacobs and Mannsman in error either.

But it does provide information not before known and not being presented by Jacobs et. al. It provides a very reasonable alternate explanation for everything. This is why Jacobs et al did not even mention Kingston George in his interview on Larry King. He doesn't want people to know that there was another explanation of what he saw.

 

[King of the Americas]

I guess you should include all those involved and who saw the film as well. They have not stepped forward and reported seeing anything unusual. The absence of their testimony indicates that nothing unusual happened. Don't give that "sworn to secrecy" nonsense either. If Jacobs can come forward without retribution, all the others could too.

Their not stepping forward tels me, only that they aren't willing to step forward. I think it would be speculation to suggest otherwise

And this proves????? Nothing. Mannsman could have been just as mistaken as Jacobs. Perhaps Jacobs called him and told him he needed an old friend to deliver a favor. We really don't know for sure do we?

Nope, we know nothing, other than 3 people have come 'forward' to publically attest to what 'they' witnessed. 2 agree, and the 3rd says they are incorrect.

Correct for once. However, if it were an alien attack, wouldn't there been tons of documents discussing the event extensively? The upper chain would be concerned about the alien spaceship that could disable their warheads. The lack of any communications regarding this test (an UFOlogists have FOIA'd the heck out of it) indicates that it was classified for the reasons given by George and NOT for the reasons given by Jacobs. There is not one iota of documentation in the record that supports his version of events other than the 20+ year old memories of another man, who may have been lying or couldn't accurately recall the event.

And it is this very 'lack of evidence', that I find so appauling. The evidence you and I both seek, was classified Top Secret and or destroyed. That this evidence disappeared is NOT Jacobs' fault. Is it your contention that the individual 'secretive' debriefings should still exist, alongside the actual footage? Well, I agree. We SHOULD be able to read ALL of those reports AND review the footage. The FOIA is intended to get the government to 'release' any records in their files... It can't re-create them, onc etheyare destroyed.

Sigh...you really haven't read Kingston George's story have you? The sudden upgrade to top secret has to do with what was revealed by the film from the telescope. That being one could determine the difference between the decoys and the true warhead. Obviously, the flight went as planned but what didn't happen as planned was the ability of the telescope to track and see what was happening..

Maybe, but I think you are speculting again. Look, there was a missle test, and they set up a telescope to possible track and view it. SURPRISE! It worked! Now, let's re-classify this BECAUSE the test actually worked!!! I think it is MORE likely that 'something' UNEXPECTED occured, and this unexpected outcome/event is what spawned the re-classification.

But it does provide information not before known and not being presented by Jacobs et. al. It provides a very reasonable alternate explanation for everything. This is why Jacobs et al did not even mention Kingston George in his interview on Larry King. He doesn't want people to know that there was another explanation of what he saw.

"...information not before known..."...?

When you use terms like "I think", or "I believe", the 'information' you present are OPINIONS.

George himself writes, "I don't THINK Jacobs ever saw the actual footage."

He doesn't KNOW what Jacobs or Mannsman were or weren't privy to.

As I said, NEITHER side has ANY sincere 'evidence' to present that will 'prove' them correct.

The ONLY thing we have to go on is the 3 witnesses, who HAVE come forward. 2 agree, and the 3rd does not.

Draw what conclusions you will...

 

[Astrophotographer]

Look, there was a missle test, and they set up a telescope to possible track and view it. SURPRISE! It worked! Now, let's re-classify this BECAUSE the test actually worked!!! I think it is MORE likely that 'something' UNEXPECTED occured, and this unexpected outcome/event is what spawned the re-classification.

The surprise was the ability of the telescope to identify the real warhead. Everyone figured it would be impossible to tell the difference. Because of this unexpected discovery, the whole event became classified. It did not require an alien spaceship to make it so.

Yes, you can draw whatever conclusion you wish. However, one does not require anything extraordinary to explain the event and the other claims something extraordinary attacked a warhead. There are no documents to support this claim as would be the case if a warhead was destroyed by somebody else. If this really happened as Jacobs claimed, the USAF would be wondering who shot the warhead down and why. Their first concern was if it were a Soviet designed ABM system. There would have been tons of documents discussing this and would be obtained via FOIA. Instead, there isn't a whisper anywhere. This is what one would expect if the missile test went as planned and George's explanation is correct.

 

[King of the Americas]

The surprise was the ability of the telescope to identify the real warhead. Everyone figured it would be impossible to tell the difference. Because of this unexpected discovery, the whole event became classified. It did not require an alien spaceship to make it so.

"...Everyone figured it would be impossible..." So why run the test, if EVERONE thought it would be imposible??? Was there ONE guy in the room, who said, "Hey, I know all of you think this is a waste of time and money, but what the hell, the government is paying hte bill, so let's take a shot and see what happens?" Why not just start off Top Secret, given that the 'test' itself was important, even if it might fail???

*"We are testing a missle and a telescope to possibly track and identify it." 'Should we classify it secret or Top Secret?', "I don't know, let's wait and see what the results look like."

THAT MAKES NO SENSE!

A failure or a positive result SHOULD have been Top Secret from the beginning!

Yes, you can draw whatever conclusion you wish. However, one does not require anything extraordinary to explain the event and the other claims something extraordinary attacked a warhead. There are no documents to support this claim as would be the case if a warhead was destroyed by somebody else. If this really happened as Jacobs claimed, the USAF would be wondering who shot the warhead down and why. Their first concern was if it were a Soviet designed ABM system. There would have been tons of documents discussing this and would be obtained via FOIA. Instead, there isn't a whisper anywhere. This is what one would expect if the missile test went as planned and George's explanation is correct.

Where are the reports from those secretive debrifings?

THEY WERE DESTROYED, or not 'recorded' at all.

WE HAVE NO DOCUMENTS to support either case, period.

This is NOT Mannsman or Jacobs' fault.

If you choose to 'believe' George, rather than Mannsman & Jacobs, based on his re-telling of the event, then go right ahead. But don't pretend that there is 'evidence' to support that choice/perference.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If you choose to 'believe' George, rather than Mannsman & Jacobs, based on his re-telling of the event, then go right ahead. But don't pretend that there is 'evidence' to support that choice/perference.

I am basing my preference on the probability of what happened. In one case (Kingston George's version), it does not require something extraordinary to happen. In the other case (Jacobs), it requires something that is extraordinary and has never been shown to exist. If Jacobs said it was a flying dinosaur that intercepted the warhead, would you accept his tale? What if he said it was the wicked witch of the east or west? Maybe Bigfoot? They all have the same probability as an alien spaceship. For George's story, we have a very likely and very reasonable explanation and it requires NO acceptance of something that may or may not exist. It is the more likely scenario.

 

[Cuddles]

"...Everyone figured it would be impossible..." So why run the test, if EVERONE thought it would be imposible??? Was there ONE guy in the room, who said, "Hey, I know all of you think this is a waste of time and money, but what the hell, the government is paying hte bill, so let's take a shot and see what happens?" Why not just start off Top Secret, given that the 'test' itself was important, even if it might fail???

*"We are testing a missle and a telescope to possibly track and identify it." 'Should we classify it secret or Top Secret?', "I don't know, let's wait and see what the results look like."

THAT MAKES NO SENSE!

A failure or a positive result SHOULD have been Top Secret from the beginning!

You're completely missing the point, and given that it has been clearly explained several times, I suspect it is deliberate. The telescope was there to track all objects present, whether real or dummy. All that it was expected to be able to do was identify that there was an object and track it. However, it turned out that not only could it track the objects, it could also tell the difference between them. This ability to not just know that something was there but to also tell what that something was is what was unexpected and led to a higher classification.

Seriously, this is not at all hard to understand. Why do you insist on going out of your way to see aliens and conspiracies everywhere when even a cursory glance at the evidence shows that you have absolutely nothing to support you?

 

[King of the Americas]

You're completely missing the point, and given that it has been clearly explained several times, I suspect it is deliberate. The telescope was there to track all objects present, whether real or dummy. All that it was expected to be able to do was identify that there was an object and track it. However, it turned out that not only could it track the objects, it could also tell the difference between them. This ability to not just know that something was there but to also tell what that something was is what was unexpected and led to a higher classification.

Seriously, this is not at all hard to understand. Why do you insist on going out of your way to see aliens and conspiracies everywhere when even a cursory glance at the evidence shows that you have absolutely nothing to support you?

Because "2" eye witnesses say otherwise...

There is NO 'evidence' to 'glance' at, because it has all been destroyed.

 

[King of the Americas]

I am basing my preference on the probability of what happened. In one case (Kingston George's version), it does not require something extraordinary to happen. In the other case (Jacobs), it requires something that is extraordinary and has never been shown to exist. If Jacobs said it was a flying dinosaur that intercepted the warhead, would you accept his tale? What if he said it was the wicked witch of the east or west? Maybe Bigfoot? They all have the same probability as an alien spaceship. For George's story, we have a very likely and very reasonable explanation and it requires NO acceptance of something that may or may not exist. It is the more likely scenario.

"...it requires something that is extraordinary and has never been shown to exist..."

See, this is where I believe you are in error. "...never been 'shown' to exist..."

I can "show" you images in ANY form of media you choose, be it modern, or millenia old.

THROUGHOUT ALL the ages, "U.F.O.'s" litter the pages of our history, and the images we have passed down.

What you really mean is you choose NOT to believe the tales and images of such things, as though they were fairies or unicorns.

Comparing U.F.O's to a character out of a movie is well beyond intellectual dishonesty.

Heads-of-state, trained pilots both military and private, and even astronauts have made 'reports' of such sightings.

LOTS of people "know" these things exist, and just as many REFUSE to believe the evidence at hand.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Comparing U.F.O's to a character out of a movie is well beyond intellectual dishonesty.

You really need to develop a sense of humor. However, my point was to show that you DON'T KNOW what was seen that day and had Jacobs said it was something else like the wicked witch or a flying dragon, you would be less to believe his story. Why would that be? Because it is the understanding of most people that those things don't exist. Why must we make the leap to accept that he saw an alien spaceship when that hasn't been shown to exist either? The amount of solid evidence for alien spaceships is the same as dragons or the wicked witch.

Heads-of-state, trained pilots both military and private, and even astronauts have made 'reports' of such sightings.

LOTS of people "know" these things exist, and just as many REFUSE to believe the evidence at hand.

All these people report seeing things they don't understand or don't know as to what they have seen. Some (you do not go into specifics but I think I know some of the people you are alluding to) have been shown to have made simple misidentifications of celestial objects or atmospheric phenomena. However, these UFO "stories" are not very good evidence at all. They are unverifiable and urepeatable. The claim they are "good" evidence is just ignoring the problems associated with this kind of testimony. Just because somebody is a governor, pilot, and, yes, even an astronaut does not make them superhuman and incapable of making a simple misidentification or mistake.

If you are stating the UFOs exist as a hodgepodge of reports of objects that can not be identified then you are correct, they do exist. If you are stating they are alien spaceships that have been seen by people, then you can not draw this conclusion because the evidence is very weak. Using the phrase "believe the evidence" is appropriate for what you are stating. That is because you have to "believe" the evidence indicates alien spaceships. You don't KNOW they are alien spaceships because there is no verifiable evidence to suggest this is the case.

 

[moon1969]

How many UFO cults and religions are there in the world? Why do the stories about UFOS and aliens change?