UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

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.

I speculate that the Pyramids were built by my gardener one Saturday afternoon with the leftover materials from the patio upgrade.

The evidence is there; you just can't see it is all. Ufologists always decry the concept of speculation where my claims about the Pyramids are concerned.

It's just so foot-stampingly unfair.

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?

The Cafflicks are starting from the point of view that the Earth was created by an ET and we are not.. Can you see how that might influence our speculations?

No, the concepts are alien to each other.

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?

It's your fairytale. Make up all the details you like.

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.

Who ya gonna call? ET?

 

[Rramjet]

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

I think you will find a MOST comprehensive analysis of the Mexican AirForce "infrared" UFO case conducted by Dr. Maccabee here ( http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

In it he is able to demonstrate that the "oil-field flare" hypothesis is a reasonable one (that is, he rejects the contention that the objects in the video are UFOs in favour of a plausible mundane hypothesis - oil-field flares).

However, it is interesting to note that while Dr. Maccabee's extensive analysis rejects "UFO" in favour of oilfield flares for the infrared video - the original RADAR target sighting (that started the whole thing off) IS considered (at least) a "radar UFO". According to the radar it was only 2 miles in front of the airplane, yet it was invisible to the eyes of the crew and also to the infrared system (which should have been able to detect the heat from any aircraft at more than 2 miles distance)!

So RoboTimbo, your contentions (1-6) are not supported by the evidence. However, it seems there WAS a UFO involved! Go figure..!

 

[RoboTimbo]

So RoboTimbo, your contentions (1-6) are not supported by the evidence. However, it seems there WAS a UFO involved! Go figure..!

You may not have recognized them but those are your same six contentions. If you find them invalid in this instance, you will need to find them invalid in every instance. If you find them valid in any of your examples, you will have to find them valid in this one also.

So Rramjet, what exactly was that evidence that caused you to forsake rational thought and subscribe to a belief system that UFOs are of alien origin?

 

[Akhenaten]

<driffel>


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

We could carry on living with it no matter what it was Rramjet.

Even if someone who knew how to argue a case had come along and proved to us that it was, in fact, a starship, so what?

I've asked before, and I'm still curious. What's the next move?

Should we start learning Vulcan or what?

 

[TjW]

So RoboTimbo, your contentions (1-6) are not supported by the evidence. However, it seems there WAS a UFO involved! Go figure..!

Yep. An Unidentified Flaming Oilfield.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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

Probably you don't understand Spanish?

About Assertion 3: We may not see anything weird on that video, now, but the pilots were extraordinary excited and confused by what they were watching. For them at that time it was certainly a weird experience.

About Assertion 6: There are indications on the pilots onboard conversations that strongly suggest they attributed intelligent behaviour to those lights. In two occasions they referenced the lights as objects "chasing" them.

You see, in hindsight everything is easy. But let's imagine for a moment that we didn't have the video footage, but only the witnesses' word on this.... Then, the "Campeche Case" would've become another classic extraordinary unsolved UFO incident, backed by the "trained", "expert", etc. voice of Air Force pilots.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But let's imagine for a moment that we didn't have the video footage, but only the witnesses' word on this.... Then, the "Campeche Case" would've become another classic extraordinary unsolved UFO incident, backed by the "trained", "expert", etc. voice of Air Force pilots.

To absolutely nobody's surprise, everyone except Rramjet knew where I was going with that.

Or Rramjet did know where I was going with it and did not like the direction AT ALL.

So Rramjet, how was it that trained military (Ministry of Defense!) personnel, trained observers all, made such a mistake? They had every tool at their disposal for observing and didn't recognize oil fires for what they were? Didn't even recognize that they were so close to ground level? Didn't even recognize that they were stationary?

Can witnesses make such mistakes, do you think? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.


ETA: The ball is still in your court, burden of proof wise.

 

[Rramjet]

You may not have recognized them but those are your same six contentions. If you find them invalid in this instance, you will need to find them invalid in every instance. If you find them valid in any of your examples, you will have to find them valid in this one also.

So Rramjet, what exactly was that evidence that caused you to forsake rational thought and subscribe to a belief system that UFOs are of alien origin?

Yes, I recognised them, I just found it interesting to see how far I could push you into arguing the "for" case in this instance... but the way you present them are not quite as I originally wrote (and later amended) - but let us not quibble over minor details.

But if I find them invalid ON THE EVIDENCE in the Mexican Infrared case, that does NOT mean they should automatically be invalidated for the Tehran UFO case. The two are entirely different cases. In fact as you are well aware I proposed the contentions (or very like them) in reference PARTICULARLY to the Iranian case - in a different case, a different set of contentions would have been produced by me -and indeed I reject them almost in entirety for the Mexican Infrared case you present.

However, I STILL maintain their general validity in the Iranian case (Access Denied’s post on the matter notwithstanding - which of course I will address ASAP)

<polite snip so the post can be referenced>

Just to make things clear, my contentions for the Iranian UFO are as follows:

First: That the case is well documented and we do have first hand eyewitness accounts.
Second: It has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO (above Mach2) and THEN being chased and overtaken by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two)*
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as the multiple witnesses, both civilian and military (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO(s) was (were) able to affect its' (their) surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing, etc.)

*I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” is just ONE of many statements showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible. Note also the “intelligent control” point.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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…


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


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]


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…


When what it actually said was this…

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



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”]



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”]


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

[emphasis mine]


So no official pilot interview.

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


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

Maccabee then further reinforces these misrepresentations by asserting…


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…


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

Pratt continues…


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…


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

[emphasis mine]


And…


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…


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?


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.


No, "we" can’t.

AD

Nicely done, Sir.

I wonder if Mr Maccabee might like to comment? Maybe someone here is in touch with him and might ask him.

 

[Rramjet]

Probably you don't understand Spanish?

About Assertion 3: We may not see anything weird on that video, now, but the pilots were extraordinary excited and confused by what they were watching. For them at that time it was certainly a weird experience.

About Assertion 6: There are indications on the pilots onboard conversations that strongly suggest they attributed intelligent behaviour to those lights. In two occasions they referenced the lights as objects "chasing" them.

You see, in hindsight everything is easy. But let's imagine for a moment that we didn't have the video footage, but only the witnesses' word on this.... Then, the "Campeche Case" would've become another classic extraordinary unsolved UFO incident, backed by the "trained", "expert", etc. voice of Air Force pilots.

Perhaps you should read Dr. Maccabee's comprehensive report on the issue (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Oh wait! You HAVE read the report... at least according to the "acknowledgments" your WERE involved in the translations for it! But perhaps you never read the final report?

If we only had the pilot transcripts, then it might have been considered "strange" or "unusual" - but I highly doubt it would have become a "classic" case. Serious UFO researchers are extremely cautious about such cases. They work on the EVIDENCE available, not on speculation, and they fully recognise the vulnerability of eyewitnesses in such cases - AND especially considering they have cases of the calibre of the Tehran UFO on which they CAN build a coherent, cogent case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, I recognised them, I just found it interesting to see how far I could push you into arguing the "for" case in this instance... but the way you present them are not quite as I originally wrote (and later amended) - but let us not quibble over minor details.

Indeed, I played you as on a stringed instrument. I think you finally realize that witness testimony can be at odds with reality. You had to be led kicking and screaming to that realization but once we got past your fiction of being a scientist, you became more tractable.

But if I find them invalid ON THE EVIDENCE in the Mexican Infrared case, that does NOT mean they should automatically be invalidated for the Tehran UFO case.

Because in hindsight, the Campeche infrared UFO case has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be oil well fires. If it hadn't been, you would have brought it up here as more evidence of your "aliens".

The two are entirely different cases.

A point you're missing is that they are all entirely different cases.

In fact as you are well aware I proposed the contentions (or very like them) in reference PARTICULARLY to the Iranian case - in a different case, a different set of contentions would have been produced by me -and indeed I reject them almost in entirety for the Mexican Infrared case you present.

Yes, I recall them. The ones you can't or won't defend.

However, I STILL maintain their general validity in the Iranian case (Access Denied’s post on the matter notwithstanding - which of course I will address ASAP)

That's because you are a true believer in your faith based UFO religion.

Just to make things clear, my contentions for the Iranian UFO are as follows:

First: That the case is well documented and we do have first hand eyewitness accounts.

As is the Campeche UFO. How does that make it alien?

Second: It has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO (above Mach2) and THEN being chased and overtaken by the UFO!

The Campeche UFO's surrounded the military aircraft! How does that make it alien?

Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two)*

The Campeche UFO was entirely "unusual" also! It was visible on infrared but not in the visible spectrum! How does that make it alien?

Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as the multiple witnesses, both civilian and military (not to mention the pilots)

Campeche UFO - infrared confirmation, military eyewitnesses. You get the gist. How does that make it alien?

Fifth: the UFO(s) was (were) able to affect its' (their) surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)

It's Campeche all over again. The UFO's surrounded the military aircraft. How does that make it alien?

Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing, etc.)

Just like the Campeche UFO! Shadowing, surrounding, you know the drill. How does that make it alien?

*I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations

Just like Campeche! So, you're convinced that the infrared Campeche UFO was aliens then?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

According to the radar it was only 2 miles in front of the airplane, yet it was invisible to the eyes of the crew and also to the infrared system (which should have been able to detect the heat from any aircraft at more than 2 miles distance)!

Just for clarification. I have the entire, unedited video, and the onboard radar never caught anything.

 

[tsig]

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.

Policeman blinded by a bright light and wrecks his cruiser and you jump to aliens as a cause.

 

[Rramjet]

This post deserves a revisit...

Here is a case as reported by Carl Sagan in his investigation of this kooky subject many years ago.
I quote.
''There was a famous case in which a firefly was trapped between two adjacent panes of glass in an airplane cockpit window and the pilots were radioing about fantastic right-angle turns, defying the laws of inertia, estimated fantastic speeds. They imagined it at some huge distance away instead of right in front of their noses.''
End of quote.
I laughed out loud upon reading that.
These were pilots who should know better.
<polite snip so that the above “citation” can be refuted>

Fireflys?

If you quote Sagan... I think you will find that Sagan was referring to Menzel’s (in his book “The World of Flying Saucers”) “explanation” of the Nash/Fortenberry Incident (14 Jul 1952 - see http://www.ufocasebook.com/nashfortenberry.pdf p.3)

For example, from a review of that book we have:

”A few examples will illustrate the main thrust of Menzel's debunking approach: in his examination of the Nash-Fortenberry case of 1952, in which two Pan American Airline pilots spotted six strange objects flying in formation over Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, Menzel at first claimed the pilots had seen "city lights reflecting off haze, clouds, or humidity". When weather records clearly showed that there was no haze, clouds, or other inversion-causing weather, an undaunted Menzel claimed that the two pilots had actually been fooled by fireflies trapped between the panes of glass in their cockpit! When Dr. James McDonald, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona and a prominent Menzel critic, pointed out the absurdity of such a claim, Menzel responded by calling McDonald a "pseudoscientist" and a "crank" - without ever specifically responding to McDonald's criticisms of his explanation.”​

(http://www.amazon.com/world-flying-saucers-scientific-examination/product-reviews/B0007IW8PA)

The Nash/Fortenberry case IS a “classic” of the UFO literature (and you can read the details in the link above) but let us address the explanation itself.

Double pane aircraft windows are made panes of glass that are sealed together at the factory. There is NO way could a firefly get in between the panes unless it was built into the window at the time of manufacture! Not very likely. But even if it were, it certainly wouldn't be capable of glowing after the window installment into the airplane in question and after the thousands of hours flight time clocked up - because it would be dead!

The fact that Sagan subsequently appealed to this explanation as if it were "typical" of UFO sighting explanations (eg; here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Sagan firefly UFO&f=false) shows precisely what LITTLE he actually knew about the subject! The fact that the explanation has now entered into “debunker lore” shows exactly how little THEY know about the subject.

Demon Haunted World, indeed! Haunted by garbage explanations!

In fact if you read (for example) Dr. Maccabee’s paper "Prosaic Explanations: the Failure of UFO Skepticism" (http://brumac.8k.com/prosaic1.html) then you will discover more about what “garbage explanation” really means! But of course you won't will you...

 

[Jocce]

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.

I have no problem with you or anyone speculating regarding alien ufo's. However, it would be nice if you could go further and present some evidence that made it possible to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. So far we've only seen arguments from ignorance and incredulity: "Can't imagine a mundane explanation for this observation".

 

[amb]

In one of the few truly scientific studies to explore this statistic...

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

...it was found that 21.5% of the over 3000 reports directly examined constituted "UNKNOWN" - as opposed to either "Identified" (mundane) or "Not enough information".

I contend that statistic to be just a "little" different than the figures you believe to be true...

I would support the evidence of truly scientific studies over "folklaw" conceptions any day.

I am posting in this forum in part to dispel some of the "folklaw mythology" of just this kind that seems prevalent in the "debunker" community. I use the evidence provided by scientific research to do this and to support my case more generally. It is my sincere hope that others will similarly use research and evidence to support and prosecute their own cases.

Coming in late to this thread, I'm sorry if this

has already been posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

 

[amb]

Or this.........

http://www.skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html

 

[Darat]

Several posts moved for being (I think..) a derail. Folks, remember that responding to off-topic posts to such an extent that it becomes a derail can get you into trouble - it really isn't worth going down that path.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Fishstick]

It's amazing that 65 pages ago it was already established nobody here is claiming UFO's dont exist - as anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps - just that the probability of them being actual extraterrestrials is extremely low compared to more rational explanations.

Yet this argument is still going on.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think you will find a MOST comprehensive analysis of the Mexican AirForce "infrared" UFO case conducted by Dr. Maccabee here ( http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

In it he is able to demonstrate that the "oil-field flare" hypothesis is a reasonable one (that is, he rejects the contention that the objects in the video are UFOs in favour of a plausible mundane hypothesis - oil-field flares).

However, it is interesting to note that while Dr. Maccabee's extensive analysis rejects "UFO" in favour of oilfield flares for the infrared video - the original RADAR target sighting (that started the whole thing off) IS considered (at least) a "radar UFO". According to the radar it was only 2 miles in front of the airplane, yet it was invisible to the eyes of the crew and also to the infrared system (which should have been able to detect the heat from any aircraft at more than 2 miles distance)!

So RoboTimbo, your contentions (1-6) are not supported by the evidence. However, it seems there WAS a UFO involved! Go figure..!

I guess anything that Maccabee states must be considered gospel when it comes to UFOs. It seems you are quoting him chapter and verse. Keep plugging his website but you have to understand he tends to be somewhat gullible. He has fallen for several hoaxes in the past because he was/is blinded by his belief in the ETH (see Ed Walters for example).

Perhaps you are unaware that Maccabee argued against the flare hypothesis (claiming they were in front of the clouds at one point) for some time before it became obvious to many that they were oil well fires. As for the mysterious radar contact, there was nothing about the contact that indicated anything unusual. Most of the radar contacts seem to have been a jumble of readings with no specific objects being located. The initial contact appears to have the characteristics of a small civilian aircraft (the airspeed was something like 60-100 knots). Shortly after that this contact is directly ahead of the aircraft and moves at the same speed of the aircraft (roughly 200 knots). When the plane changes course, the contact vanishes. At no time was there any visual on the contact even though it was about 2 miles away. It could be that this is simply a ghost reflection, something in the equipment, or operator error. However, there is nothing really compelling about this target. I think Dr. Maccabee is trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill. Once it was realized the FLIR images were of oil wells, he went and looked for something obscur so his report could include some strange event that could not be 'explained'.

This case was dead less than a month after it was announced on the internet forums of it being a great UFO event. There was an extensive discussion in this forum about it and, eventually, everyone agreed they were oil well fires.