UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Blackwell]

....So my question now becomes- if speculation on the existence of alien life forms is now accepted by top researchers in astrobiology, then what is wrong with me speculating the damage done to Deputy Sheriff Johnsons car had no other reasonable explanation other than aliens?

Because the astrobiologists don't seem to be speculating as to whether intelligent E.T. life has visited here; just that they may exist, somewhere out there. I'm not sure many people here would disagree with that speculation. I have no problem with it.


ETA: Damn. I meant to say: "Yeah -- what Jocce said."

 

[SnidelyW]

But my question remains. Where was it confirmed to be aliens responsible for the occurence? Why was it not fairies or garden gnomes or ball lightning or hobbits or deputy Johnson hoaxing the event to hide something he did that would have gotten him into trouble? Once you can definitively put those questions to rest, I have a couple of others.

SnidleyW, what did you think of the Campeche FLIR video of the UFOs taken by the Mexican Ministry of Defense personnel in post 2582?

The Johnson incident was thoroughly investigated by many different agencies, and by experts from Ford Motor Company. No explanation could be formed as to the reason for the damage. The antennae were microscopically examined for evidence of physical contact, and the bug residue was still intact on the leading edge of the antennae.
Basic research of this case will bear out the claim this was not hoaxed in any way shape or form.
Philip Klass examined this case, and to all who may not know, Klass has made his career in examining UFO cases with a skeptical eye. Klass could offer no explanation.


As for the Mexican case, I shall review the post and reply when I have brought myself up to speed on the facts.

 

[SnidelyW]

There's a world of difference between speculating in the existence of alien life forms and speculating that one of them crashed its ufo into a patrol car because "I can't think of other explanations". It just seems silly to me *shrugs*.

Fair enough. I fully understand the difference you're getting at, and will agree there was no physical trace of an alien substance to point to on the police car.

I am of the belief that in the Val Johnson case, basic speculation on the incident leads us away from man-made reasons for the damage. Throw in the missing time - 14 minutes of it.
If two separate clocks both read 14 minutes slow, that points to an alteration in the laws of time as we know them, and I would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact.

My standard for extraordinary evidence has been met.

 

[SnidelyW]

There's a world of difference between speculating in the existence of alien life forms and speculating that one of them crashed its ufo into a patrol car because "I can't think of other explanations". It just seems silly to me *shrugs*.

The question now becomes one of the acceptance of speculation regarding extraterrestrials.. If I or Rramjet, speculate that alien contact has occurred because of certain circumstances surrounding a UFO incident, the skeptics decry the concept of speculation, saying they only recognize physical evidence.

Now we have leading scientists, and the Vatican, endorsing speculation as it relates to extraterrestrials. What is the difference if we speculate here and they speculate there? The concept is the same, right?

Under the skeptic rules of engagement, angry missives should be fired off at all participants of the Vatican Conference, asking them for the physical evidence to back up this endorsement, right?

I think it is fair for the skeptics to at least agree on the rules before challenging us on our standards for UFO alien evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The antennae were microscopically examined for evidence of physical contact, and the bug residue was still intact on the leading edge of the antennae.

That suggests that they were bent by hand rather than struck by an external object, yes?

Klass could offer no explanation.

This is the game Rramjet is playing. Asking skeptics to offer alternative mundane explanations so that he can point out why each one doesn't fit some small bit of the evidence. Then he concludes, "Yup, therefore must be aliens!". I'm not going to offer alternative explanations, I'll wait for evidence of aliens from the claimant.

As for the Mexican case, I shall review the post and reply when I have brought myself up to speed on the facts.

Thanks, looking forward to it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If two separate clocks both read 14 minutes slow, that points to an alteration in the laws of time as we know them, and I would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact.

My standard for extraordinary evidence has been met.

Or, a mundane explanation, deputy Johnson's wristwatch was incorrect by 14 minutes to begin with and he synchronized the old Ford's dash clock to it when he began his shift.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Under the skeptic rules of engagement, angry missives should be fired off at all participants of the Vatican Conference, asking them for the physical evidence to back up this endorsement, right?

I think it is fair for the skeptics to at least agree on the rules before challenging us on our standards for UFO alien evidence.

I'm bringing this over from another thread:

Is there compelling evidence for it? Chances for the existence of alien life in the universe is virtually 1. Visiting Earth, not so much.

You are conflating speculation on the existence of alien life on other planets with alien visitation to our world. Don't fall into that strawman trap.

 

[SnidelyW]

..snip...
First: It was well documented
Second: It paced the military airplane
Third: The objects were entirely weird
Fourth: There was infrared confirmation as well as multiple witnesses (trained military personnel!)
Fifth: The UFOs affected their surroundings
Sixth: The UFOs exhibited intelligent behavior

So, by your criteria, these UFOs were aliens?

I believe this case was proven to be oil well flares from offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

I take exception to assertion #3 and assertion #6. I do not think the video bears out either assertion.

So, the 'standards' for evidence question comes up yet again. You assert the objects exhibited intelligent behaviour. I do not, and would not point to this case as an example to use in support of UFO and alien existence.

Read this link as a bit of a primer- with attention to example 1) and the subsequent analysis;

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

That case is one where I have no trouble accepting the video as genuine.

In example G) the designer of the cutting edge of U.S. spyplane technology sees an object he cannot identify, and Stanton Friedman supplies an excellent endorsement of the validity of the eyewitness.

 

[Blackwell]

<snip>...Now we have leading scientists, and the Vatican, endorsing speculation as it relates to extraterrestrials. What is the difference if we speculate here and they speculate there? The concept is the same, right?

Under the skeptic rules of engagement, angry missives should be fired off at all participants of the Vatican Conference, asking them for the physical evidence to back up this endorsement, right?

I think it is fair for the skeptics to at least agree on the rules before challenging us on our standards for UFO alien evidence.

I think you missed the point of Jocce's (and my) reply. If you look through the recent UFO threads here, many posters have admitted that they have no problem with the idea of life, intelligent or otherwise, elsewhere in the universe. However, it doesn't logically follow that we believe that intelligent life has visited Earth.

ETA: D'oh. And once again, I'm a few minutes late. What RoboTimbo said...

 

[GeeMack]

Fair enough. I fully understand the difference you're getting at, and will agree there was no physical trace of an alien substance to point to on the police car.

I am of the belief that in the Val Johnson case, basic speculation on the incident leads us away from man-made reasons for the damage. Throw in the missing time - 14 minutes of it.
If two separate clocks both read 14 minutes slow, that points to an alteration in the laws of time as we know them, and I would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact.

My standard for extraordinary evidence has been met.

And why do you think it was not a god, or a ghost or poltergeist, or a flying type of bigfoot that hasn't ever been identified, or any of hundreds of other things you could imagine? Or can you only imagine aliens? Since you're making up causes based on your ignorance and incredulity, why don't you make up a few more good ones?

 

[SnidelyW]

I'm bringing this over from another thread:


You are conflating speculation on the existence of alien life on other planets with alien visitation to our world. Don't fall into that strawman trap.

Thanks, I understand your argument, but then there is this case from Delphos, Kansas to confound things;

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm

I think this case shows strong evidence aliens landed on our world.

See, that is the problem I have, and I think I share it with a lot of others- we understand the skeptical position, but just when we begin to slide over to the skeptical line of thinking, along comes a Delphos, Kansas to make us begin to wonder again.

 

[GeeMack]

I believe this case was proven to be oil well flares from offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

I take exception to assertion #3 and assertion #6. I do not think the video bears out either assertion.

So, the 'standards' for evidence question comes up yet again. You assert the objects exhibited intelligent behaviour. I do not, and would not point to this case as an example to use in support of UFO and alien existence.

It's not really a question. You've made it plain as day that you are willing to accept arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and redefine the word evidence to allow that non-evidence to fit. Those who are actually skeptical here, and all legitimate scientists on Earth for that matter, don't agree that arguments from ignorance and incredulity are evidence, except for being evidence of incredulity and ignorance of course.

We have seen the scientific method work as a means of learning more about the universe we live in. Guesses, ignorance, incredulity, fabricating answers from one's imagination might be fun for you while you're in high school. But someday when you get out, you'll likely find out that incredulity and ignorance are not scientific and haven't helped us learn more about our universe.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I believe this case was proven to be oil well flares from offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

I take exception to assertion #3 and assertion #6. I do not think the video bears out either assertion.

So, the 'standards' for evidence question comes up yet again. You assert the objects exhibited intelligent behaviour. I do not, and would not point to this case as an example to use in support of UFO and alien existence.

Read this link as a bit of a primer- with attention to example 1) and the subsequent analysis;

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

That case is one where I have no trouble accepting the video as genuine.

In example G) the designer of the cutting edge of U.S. spyplane technology sees an object he cannot identify, and Stanton Friedman supplies an excellent endorsement of the validity of the eyewitness.

Are you alleging that the witness statements don't all align with the video?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Thanks, I understand your argument, but then there is this case from Delphos, Kansas to confound things;

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm

I think this case shows strong evidence aliens landed on our world.

See, that is the problem I have, and I think I share it with a lot of others- we understand the skeptical position, but just when we begin to slide over to the skeptical line of thinking, along comes a Delphos, Kansas to make us begin to wonder again.

I hate to sound like a broken record but Hendry discussed the Delphos case in his book (pages 130-132). Rather than showing his comparisons, I will summarize. He listed the characteristics of the Delphos ring and then listed the characteristics of a 'fairy ring". The comparisons were similar. Hendry writes:

This exercise is less an attempt to identify the Delphos soil as a fairy ring as it is a demonstration that even this celebrated physical-trace case does not exhibit characteristics that point the way to unique, mysterious origins.

Therefore, the Delphos ring by itself is nothing unusual and appears to have an earthly explanation.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Fair enough. I fully understand the difference you're getting at, and will agree there was no physical trace of an alien substance to point to on the police car.

I am of the belief that in the Val Johnson case, basic speculation on the incident leads us away from man-made reasons for the damage. Throw in the missing time - 14 minutes of it.
If two separate clocks both read 14 minutes slow, that points to an alteration in the laws of time as we know them, and I would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact.

My standard for extraordinary evidence has been met.

Only if it was physically impossible for a human to turn clocks back.

 

[Akhenaten]

Fair enough. I fully understand the difference you're getting at, and will agree there was no physical trace of an alien substance to point to on the police car.

You'd look pretty silly agreeing to anything else, wouldn't you?

I am of the belief that in the Val Johnson case, basic speculation on the incident leads us away from man-made reasons for the damage. Throw in the missing time - 14 minutes of it.
If two separate clocks both read 14 minutes slow, that points to an alteration in the laws of time as we know them, and I would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact.

Is there a difference between basic speculation and the more advanced kind? Do the results of advanced speculation pop into existence with greater frequency?

And what's this drivel about missing time? Is there an APB out for the missing time? Is the Sheriff or whatever still missing his 14 minutes, and turning up late for everything, or did the time suddenly reappear?

If two separate clocks, both under the control of a single person, are 14 minutes slow, does that not suggest to you another possibility besides aliens? If your car clock needs adjusting, Snidely, what do you use as a reference, the Sun?

"An alteration in the laws of time as we know them" ????

I would suggest that whatever these laws are that you refer to, you display no understanding of them.

Yet despite this lack, and having nothing else to go on, you "would posit that is all the 'extraordinary' evidence needed to establish alien contact."

Your ordinary evidence must be very ordinary indeed.

My standard for extraordinary evidence has been met.

And the Earth remains unshattered. Fancy that.

 

[Rramjet]

Here's one, for example. Don't you find it a valid counter-argument?.

And there are countless others.

I have replied to this post already, but given the "blimp" hypothesis for Rogue River has such currency among the debunkers... I feel it might be worth placing another nail in the coffin of that hypothesis.

The overall shape of the second (pancake) illustration has been compared to the overall shape of a blimp in order to argue that the witnesses actually saw, but failed to identify, a blimp. The question addressed here is this:: Is it legitimate to compare the drawing with a blimp as originally done in Post #333 (here

(...)

)?

Consider first the testimony of Mr. B (actually we do know his name was Rivera and he was a draftsman) "The object was then examined through a pair of 8-power, Navy- type binoculars. Observation time about 90- 120 seconds. Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view.” Note the use of the terminology - appeared to be round ”in plan view".

Consider now the testimony of Mr. C (Heaphy) "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object traveled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section."

Mr. B compared its appearance to that of a 50c piece seen from below and to one side. Such a coin has a milled edge which, from the side and below (a coin with its flat surface horizontal) looks somewhat like the short vertical lines that form the outer boundary or edge of the object in the upper drawing in the Special Report #14, Case 10 presentation - see attached image). In other words the overall shape of the Rogue River object looked like a very short cylinder with a FLAT BOTTOM.

Keep in mind that the witnesses had many seconds (to a minute or more) to observe details. Mr B was a draftsman. He used the term "plan view". This means that in his opinion, if he had observed the object from a point directly above (or below) it, it would have appeared circular (with a flat bottom). Mr. C compared it to a pancake and he also said that, whereas it "appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section." This is again similar to a coin, but he also said a little thicker in the center than at the edges. He also specifically refers to the bottom of the object as being "perfectly flat" and says that surface was "parallel to the earth".

So, what is this "plan view" or "plan section"? Look it up on Wiki. One imagines a horizontal plane "cut through" the body of the object and then one imagines removing the upper portion leaving an "section view" of the object. What is important here is that the "plan view" would show the true shape of the outer boundary of the object (as if observed from above). So, when they say circular in plan view (or section), they mean that, in their estimation, the object was round. Note that a flat round disc seen from a point off the axis of the disc would appear elliptical or, what some might incorrectly call "oval."

So by combining these descriptions we get an object which is circular in "plan view," (i.e. when seen from directly above or below), the lower surface of which is FLAT and which also was "parallel to the earth" and the upper surface of which has a slight curvature (or bulge) in the centre. These descriptions, properly understood by anyone familiar with "drafting" or mechanical drawing, explain why the sketches look as they do. The man or men who drew these sketches (don't know if both sketches were drawn by Mr. C or by both B and C, as a "joint effort") was (were) trying to portray what they actually saw in perspective view as opposed to "plan view". Hence, as pointed out in post #333 there is a "vague resemblance" of the second sketch to the overall shape of the blimp because the perspective view of the drawing seems to show a downward "bulge" of the bottom of the object similar to the downward bulge of the bottom of the blimp. But from the verbal description of the object as resembling a coin and the specific statement that it had a FLAT BOTTOM , it is apparent that the "downward bulge" in the drawing is actually an artefact of the perspective view (from below and to one side of the axis of rotation) of a circular, coin or pancake shaped object that has a FLAT BOTTOM.

Now, compare this with the perspective view of a blimp: there is NO flat bottom. The bottom of a blimp bulges downward from all viewing directions (that allow for a view of the bottom - i.e., from every side and bottom view but, of course, not from a top view). Look at the numerous blimp pictures. I see none that appear to have a "perfectly flat" bottom, as described by Mr. C.

The two major witnesses weren't incompetent. You can bet that they gave their full attention to this sighting and they felt very confident that they had made a good observation before they went to the security office to make a report to NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics).

So, live with it: the object was not a blimp.

 

[Access Denied]

At the risk of repeating some stuff others have already pointed out in regards to the Iran case and assuming anybody’s still interested, here’s my $0.02…

Now some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value.

And they would be justified in their skepticism. To wit…

To show this is not correct, first we have:

“The pilots were interviewed the next day. The Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), in the person of Lt. Col. Mooy, sat in on the interview of the second pilot who landed at Mehrebad.”

Oh really? Are you sure about that?

Let’s see if Maccabee’s “analysis” written in 2006 (and curiously updated a few weeks ago on Oct. 17th, 2009) stands up under closer scrutiny.

Maccabee states his primary sources are…

[not counting the anonymous sources “Bob” and “Henry” he used that conveniently can’t be independently verified]

[Note: what follows is my reconstruction of the sighting history. This is based, in part, on two interviews of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events. They were provided to me by reporter Bob Pratt, who was, at the time, a full time UFO investigator employed by the National Enquirer. This history is also based on newspaper accounts and on the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy, that primarily describes the events as recounted during an interview of the pilot of the second jet. Col. Mooy was a member of the MAAG or Military Assistance and Advisory Group which consisted of USAF officers who provided assistance and advice to the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF).]

Maccabee then goes on placing much weight on this report and the alleged interview throughout his “reconstruction” as evidenced by the following collection of snippets…

“This time, according to the Air Force teletype message (see below) of Lt. Col. Mooy…”

“According to the Air Force teletype message, based on the interview of the second pilot during the following day…”

“The AF teletype message further states…”

“According to the Air Force teletype message…” (twice)

“The Air Force message continues…”

“The next day, according to the Air Force message…”

Maccabee then quotes the rmessage as saying this…

The aircraft and area where the object is believed to have landed are being checked for possible radiation. More information will be forwarded when it becomes available.

When what it actually said was this…

[missing text emphasized and note the redacted part is the [C] confidential classification marking]

THE AIRCRAFT AND AREA WHERE THE OBJECT IS BELIEVED TO HAVE LANDED ARE BEING CHECKED FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION. RO COMMENTS: [redacted] ACTUAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM SOURCE IN CONVERSATION WITH A SUB-SOURCE, AND IIAF PILOT OF ONE OF THE F-4S. MORE INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Read that again very carefully. Sounds to me like the “source”, not the RO (reporting official), “interviewed” a “sub-source”, and one of the pilots… hence the reason it’s presented as preliminary information in the very next sentence. This leads me to believe the entire report was based on secondhand information. One wonders why Maccabee did not include that sentence?

[it’s redacted in the early “leaked” version of the document but present in the later FOIA release]

Perhaps one of Maccabee’s own sources, Bob Pratt, can shed some light on this…

[google “The Pentagon’s ‘Classic’ UFO Case”]

That is only part of the story, as obtained by John Checkley, then a National Enquirer reporter based in London, and Vahe Petrossian, a freelance journalist then living in Tehran. The military was releasing no details of the incident and Pirouzi, the air traffic controller, was the only one who would talk about it at that time.

Additional interesting details were provided in a classified message sent to the Pentagon by Colonel Frank B. McKenzie, the defense attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

So it appears Maccabee’s “reconstruction” is wrong based on his own sources…

1. The teletype wasn’t written by a Lt. Col. Mooy with the MAAG who is alleged to have “interviewed” one of the pilots.

2. The “source” mentioned in the teletype was likely the freelance journalist Petrossian.

3. The “sub-source” mentioned in the teletype was likey the air traffic controller Pirouzi.

So who actually “interviewed” the pilot?

Before I continue, I’d like to remind everyone about this…

[google “Hynek and the National Enquirer – Bob Pratt”]

In those days the Enquirer was offering $1 million to anyone who could prove that UFOs came from outer space. The Blue Ribbon panel was formed to determine whether any case provided that proof. The panel would get together at least once a year to assess the "best" cases of the previous year. None, of course, proved UFOs were from outer space, but the Enquirer also paid $5,000 to $10,000 to those witnesses involved in the case of the year that provided the "best scientific evidence of the reality of UFOs" or something to that effect.

That said, Pratt sheds some light on the alleged interview as well…

[emphasis mine]

I asked how he obtained the information for his report and he replied: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversation for three or four days.”

The partial report published by NICAP indicated he had talked to one of the Iranian pilots, but McKenzie said:

"I didn't talk to the Iranian pilots. As a matter of fact, I didn't talk to anybody who did talk to him, per se. I got my information from, oh, various sources. I got a lot of it from the newspapers, in fact."

So no official pilot interview.

Now back to Maccabee’s “analysis” where he speculates…

[Note: there are no further US Air Force memoranda on this case. That does not mean that there was no further investigation by the USAF or the IIAF.]

However, that does mean there’s absolutely no evidence there was.

Maccabee then further reinforces these misrepresentations by asserting…

The pilots were interviewed the next day. The Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), in the person of Lt. Col. Mooy, sat in on the interview of the second pilot who landed at Mehrebad. (Only a second hand, and very shortened, version of the first pilot’s story was available to Col. Mooy.)

Huh? So now depending on who you ask, both pilot’s accounts are secondhand? The second pilot’s account is secondhand according to Col. McKenzie and the first pilot’s account is secondhand according to Col. Mooy and/or Maccabee. Anybody confused yet?

And…

This interview forms the core of the official teletype message that was sent to many USA military and intelligence agencies including the three armed services, the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the White House.

No, it doesn’t… at least not according to the reporting official who wrote it.

Pratt continues…

Colonel McKenzie had said he had no "one-man source" for his information and had no ties with MAAG. However, the Air Force eventually released another document on the Iran affair.

It was a "Memorandum of Record," written by Lieutenant Colonel Olin R. Mooy, the U.S. Air Force executive officer for MAAG. He was one of two U.S. Air Force colonels who sat in on the debriefing of First Lieutenant Jalal Damirian and Second Lieutenant Hossein Shokry, the crew of the second F-4 Phantom jet (similar to the one shown here) that went up that night.

It is interesting that Colonel McKenzie's classified message to the Pentagon on the UFO incident says exactly the same thing, word for word, as Colonel Mooy's report written after the debriefing.

Huh? The pilot of the second jet by all other accounts was Lieutenant Parviz Jafari and I can’t seem to find a copy of this alleged "Memorandum of Record" to review anywhere. Certainly Jafari is the only one making the rounds on the UFO circuit talking about aliens…

Seems to me if it says the exact same thing as Colonel McKenzie's teletype it’s because it is.

[circular references anyone?]

Now just because the teletype was sent to all those agencies doesn’t mean anything in itself. For all we know all but one could have simply dismissed it as spam…

Col. Roland Evans wrote [a month after the incident occurred –AD] an evaluation of the report, dated October 12, 1976

…from a “true believer” in the ranks? Pratt seems to confirm this…

[emphasis mine]

"I was an intelligence analyst," said Major Evans. "This (Iran incident) came through as a routine intelligence analysis. I was given the report because my field is electronic warfare.

And…

"To me, there were too many circumstances that fit in, indicating this thing was no an aberration, it was not swamp gas or anything else. There's just no other way to explain it. It was real. It was there.

"That's why I call it a classic."

Although he says this was the first UFO report he ever evaluated, he seems to be fairly familiar with the UFO jargon.

[one wonders exactly who “leaked” the teletype to UFOlogists and why]

Maccabee finally concludes…

Although the American government claims that there was no investigation following the initial interviews of the pilots… [snip] It seems reasonable there that there would have been more investigation by the USAF to try to determine the nature of the failure of the electronics.

Oh really? Is this what prompted Maccabee to use the anonymous “testimony” of “Bob” and “Frank” in his “reconstruction”… to create “evidence” where in fact there was none?

On the other hand, the lack of evidence that there was an investigation could mean that there was none and this, in turn could mean that the intelligence agencies realized that this was not a Soviet aircraft and, furthermore, that it represented some technology far beyond any earthly technology. And, realizing this, the intelligence and defense agencies may have just decided to “give up” and ignore it.“

Oh really? Or maybe they really did realize it was Soviet aircraft?

[or already knew]

Conclusion: At best the DIA analyst (Col. Evans) believed the reporting official’s secondhand source to be credible [then again analysts believed there were WMD in Iraq] and Maccabee’s “analysis” is based in large part on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, errors of omission, and obfuscation… in other words, this case is nothing more than unsubstantiated National Enquirer material.

So we can note that the information in the case was derived from first hand accounts and that the information was considered reliable and valuable by the NSA.

No, "we" can’t.

AD

 

[GeeMack]

I have replied to this post already, but given the "blimp" hypothesis for Rogue River has such currency among the debunkers... I feel it might be worth placing another nail in the coffin of that hypothesis.

Do you really not understand that your argument has been rejected?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you alleging that the witness statements don't all align with the video?

Rramjet, you'd better jump in here. SnidleyW is about to agree that witnesses can be mistaken.

Damage control! Damage control!