UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

No one KNOWS what the Rogue River UFO was, that's the point people have been beating you over the head with. Now, where's this evidence of aliens?

That no-one knows what the Rogue River UFO was is precisely my point.

Perhaps then you might like to try this little case as an appetiser?

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
(http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/87504/20080804-0952/www.auforn.com/FATHER_GILL.html)

The following site is currently down for some reason, but it is usually reliable so I expect the problem to be fixed soon, so I will give the link:
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)

"Aliens"? Certainly "beings"! ...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Campeche incident (mundane oilwell fires) bears no resemblance to the Tehran incident ("alien" UFO). Thus there simply ARE no "implications" of the order you are suggesting. Simple as that really.

The nonsensical report from the confused Campeche crew provides a perfect example of how the confused Tehran crews could be reporting nonsense too. Your handwaving dismissal puts far to kind a gloss on the cohesion of their reports. I am far from convinced that both planes were chasing the same object, the evidence that both obtained a radar lock on any real object is just not there, and several aspects of the report make no coherent sense at all (as Puddle Duck helpfully illustrated, even if you alone are determined to ignore this and attack his bona fides instead of actually thinking about it).

 

[Rramjet]

I didn't miss a thing.

"Perhaps"??!! Yeah, and "perhaps" they duct-taped the Easter Bunny backwards to the outside of the canopy and he signals the presence of pursuing UFOs by blinking his keychain flashlight! Hope they used a little extra duct tape to tape his tail down---don't want the poor little guy to get a cold air enema!!

Please don't bother to go find out and bring real evidence.

I'm happy to leave it to those reading to judge who brings evidence and who is resorting to armwaving.

ferd

You don't believe me that there were mirrors on the F-4?

(http://books.google.com.au/books?id...EwAg#v=onepage&q="F-4" cockpit mirror&f=false)

Umm...now what purpose would they have I wonder...?

You seem to be flapping all over the place like a headless chook on this one... I gave you a chance, now what have you got to say I wonder?

 

[Sledge]

Perhaps then you might like to try this little case as an appetiser?

That depends. Are we going to spend fifty pages debunking it, only for you to finally admit that it isn't convincing, but that the sheer number of unconvincing cases is strong evidence?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So (getting back to the actual point of the non-existant rear-facing radar) looking in your rear view mirror at night, how do you ascertain whether an unidentified object behind you is 5, 10 or 15 miles away (or indeed several million miles away, as in your panic you're probably just running away from Jupiter).

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have answered this question from you before:

No you haven't. You've deliberately missed the point and refused to answer the question. Is that because you don't like facing the implications it has for your pet case?

Let me ask another way and see if you get it this time:

Can pilots be mistaken only when a UFO case is debunkable?

The Iranian (Tehran) UFO incident is completely different in a number of key aspects - not the least of which is that in the Iranian case the F-4s were "directed" to a specified target, which they were able to directly see and lock their radars onto as well as chase it and have it chase them! There were a number of characteristics of the Iranian UFOs that differed also (the shape shifting, the mach 2 - and above - speeds, the splitting apart and rejoining, the fleeing and chasing, the ability to "neutralise" the F-4 avionics, and much more). Oil well fires are not capable of doing these things.

The Campeche incident (mundane oilwell fires) bears no resemblance to the Tehran incident ("alien" UFO). Thus there simply ARE no "implications" of the order you are suggesting. Simple as that really.

Shouldn't you be debunking the oilwell fires since that isn't what the pilots described? Apply your same "skills" to the Campeche case as you've been doing to the Iranian case.

 

[ferd burfle]

You don't believe me that there were mirrors on the F-4?

(http://books.google.com.au/books?id...EwAg#v=onepage&q="F-4" cockpit mirror&f=false)

Umm...now what purpose would they have I wonder...?

You seem to be flapping all over the place like a headless chook on this one... I gave you a chance, now what have you got to say I wonder?

Good evidence! I was wrong.

So, I guess we're back a the point where you're calling Puddle Duck a liar about being an F-4 pilot.


ferd

 

[Rramjet]

The nonsensical report from the confused Campeche crew provides a perfect example of how the confused Tehran crews could be reporting nonsense too. Your handwaving dismissal puts far to kind a gloss on the cohesion of their reports. I am far from convinced that both planes were chasing the same object, the evidence that both obtained a radar lock on any real object is just not there, and several aspects of the report make no coherent sense at all (as Puddle Duck helpfully illustrated, even if you alone are determined to ignore this and attack his bona fides instead of actually thinking about it).

First the Campeche report is not “nonsensical” at all. It makes a great deal of sense. It would seem the crew got a radar lock on a UFO ahead of them and couldn’t understand why they weren’t seeing it. Then they started casting around and found other objects out there! Their initial confusion was maintained when they could not identify the oil field. They simply thought that there were multiple “UFO”s out there. This is, I suggest, an entirely human reaction to the situation they found themselves in. It is explicable and it has since been determined that there is a “mundane” explanation for the “multiple” UFOs…but interestingly NOT for the first UFO …

The Tehran thing is COMPLETELY different. There the pilots and crews had a definite visual target to go after – which they did. At least one (the second F-4) got a good radar lock on the object (at 27nm and closed to within 25nm WITH that radar lock still on it). The first might not have got a lock on before he lost his avionics, but we can’t be sure.

Second: just because Puddle Duck believes the reports make no sense (to him) that does not mean the rest of us cannot actually read the reports, do a little research, and find out for ourselves what was going on. There is certainly enough information in the public domain for us to do that very thing.

Sure there are aspects that might seem to a casual observer to be confused – even contradictory - but as I have shown, as soon as you actually do the hard research, those things DO resolve themselves. The other thing is it would have been nice to have some extra information - like the communication transcripts between the pilots and the tower - but we don’t have them, so all we can go on is the evidence as presented. The story is cohesive, we have first hand and reliable sources, the sequence of events and the descriptions of what occurred during those events make sense. The only thing that doesn’t “make sense” is the fact that we cannot identify WHAT the UFO WAS. But even here we have a number of clear descriptive characteristics to guide us.

Finally: I question Puddle Duck’s bona fides because of his seeming misunderstanding of his own alleged area of “expertise”. That is not “attacking” (in the sense you mean it). Puddle Duck muddied the water in the pond and I set out merely to clarify the situation and in the process have shown him to be simply wrong on many of his contentions.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the case yourself?

 

[RoboTimbo]

First the Campeche report is not “nonsensical” at all. It makes a great deal of sense.

It absolutely does. Just not the way you'd like to believe.

This is, I suggest, an entirely human reaction to the situation they found themselves in.

Right again. You're on a roll.

It is explicable and it has since been determined that there is a “mundane” explanation for the “multiple” UFOs…but interestingly NOT for the first UFO …

You're almost there.

The Tehran thing is COMPLETELY different. There the pilots and crews had a definite visual target to go after – which they did. At least one (the second F-4) got a good radar lock on the object (at 27nm and closed to within 25nm WITH that radar lock still on it). The first might not have got a lock on before he lost his avionics, but we can’t be sure.

Second: just because Puddle Duck believes the reports make no sense (to him) that does not mean the rest of us cannot actually read the reports, do a little research, and find out for ourselves what was going on. There is certainly enough information in the public domain for us to do that very thing.

Sure there are aspects that might seem to a casual observer to be confused – even contradictory - but as I have shown, as soon as you actually do the hard research, those things DO resolve themselves. The other thing is it would have been nice to have some extra information - like the communication transcripts between the pilots and the tower - but we don’t have them, so all we can go on is the evidence as presented. The story is cohesive, we have first hand and reliable sources, the sequence of events and the descriptions of what occurred during those events make sense. The only thing that doesn’t “make sense” is the fact that we cannot identify WHAT the UFO WAS. But even here we have a number of clear descriptive characteristics to guide us.

Finally: I question Puddle Duck’s bona fides because of his seeming misunderstanding of his own alleged area of “expertise”. That is not “attacking” (in the sense you mean it). Puddle Duck muddied the water in the pond and I set out merely to clarify the situation and in the process have shown him to be simply wrong on many of his contentions.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the case yourself?

And then you fall back into religious believer mode. You were so close.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps you should do a little research on the case yourself?

I'm really not that interested. I just skimmed the stuff you presented. As I already pointed out, in at least one instance that's more than you appear to have done.

 

[Rramjet]

Good evidence! I was wrong.

So, I guess we're back a the point where you're calling Puddle Duck a liar about being an F-4 pilot.

ferd

Thank you. It might not mean much in this place but you just went up a few notches in my regard for you. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong in public and especially in this place.

As for calling Puddle duck a liar. No... I merely questioned his bona fides, as I am entitled to do. I have NO idea who Puddle Duck is. Perhaps you do? His statements have been shown to be incorrect on a number of F-4 and related aspects that, if he was a (former) F-4 pilot, he should have been aware of. For example the F-4 DID have rear facing radar (just not able to tell range from it)...and there was the F-4 speed (top and cruising) issue and the "auxilliary" fuel tanks thing, etc... So I believe I am entitled to then at least raise the question.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] So I believe I am entitled to then at least raise the question.

But will you ever bring in any evidence to support your claim that aliens exist? You still seem to be suggesting that your personal incredulity and ignorance somehow constitute evidence. And you're still wrong.

 

[TjW]

Thank you. It might not mean much in this place but you just went up a few notches in my regard for you. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong in public and especially in this place.

As for calling Puddle duck a liar. No... I merely questioned his bona fides, as I am entitled to do. I have NO idea who Puddle Duck is. Perhaps you do? His statements have been shown to be incorrect on a number of F-4 and related aspects that, if he was a (former) F-4 pilot, he should have been aware of. For example the F-4 DID have rear facing radar (just not able to tell range from it)...and there was the F-4 speed (top and cruising) issue and the "auxilliary" fuel tanks thing, etc... So I believe I am entitled to then at least raise the question.

No. The F4 doesn't have rear facing radar. It has a rear-facing receiver. Radar is short for RAdio Detection And Ranging. No ranging? It isn't radar, by definition.

 

[Belgian thought]

Perhaps then you might like to try this little case as an appetiser?

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
(http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/87504/20080804-0952/www.auforn.com/FATHER_GILL.html)

"Aliens"? Certainly "beings"! ...

Indeed from the quote from Rev. Fr William B. Gill -
"We watched figures appear on top four of them no doubt that they are human."

Spotlights were also seen, it hovered, men on the top etc...

Interestingly the first amphibious sea kings Sikorsky S-61R and Seaguard Sikorsky S-62 were being flown for the first time, most likely still going through commissioning/testing phase - (away from prying Russian eyes perhaps seeing that US bases in Papa New Guinea were very far from Russia).

Something a little bit more wholesome, for you to swallow and inwardly digest perhaps?

 

[Belgian thought]

Just to add, it was very dark then - the nearly half moon not rising for another 4 hours or so:

Ephemeris for 1959-06-26 19:00§, UT, 10°29'S, 150°04'E
* These values are geocentric.
Apparent* (W from S) Unrefracted Vis. Illum.
Right Asc Declination Azimuth Altitude Magn. Frac.
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ------
Sun 6h19m05s 23°22'10" 248°53'20" -32°06'30" -26.7 ···
Moon 23h24m12s -2°09'33" 244°43'46" 70°59'22" -10.5 61.8%

Therfore the drawing and descriptions are likely to have been pretty crap.

 

[Rramjet]

No. The F4 doesn't have rear facing radar. It has a rear-facing receiver. Radar is short for RAdio Detection And Ranging. No ranging? It isn't radar, by definition.

Still, there remains the detection facility, and Puddle Duck implied that the crew would not have been able to determine if anything was behind them at all, and specifically, not be able to provide range data.

However we now know that the crew most certainly WOULD have been able to detect an object closing from behind and we also now know that there were "rear-vision" mirrors fitted to the F-4, so the pilots WOULD have been able to estimate distances - especially if they know the object is moving toward them and they knew the initial range (25nm) and they know how fast they are going and they know the apparent rate of closure. From that information they could have given the approximated range data as reported. In other words it WAS within their capability to do so. Puddle Duck implied that it was NOT within their capability. My point was simply to point out that he was mistaken about that assumption and that - being a former F-4 pilot - he SHOULD have known that.

 

[TjW]

Still, there remains the detection facility, and Puddle Duck implied that the crew would not have been able to determine if anything was behind them at all, and specifically, not be able to provide range data.

The only way they would be able to use the receiver to tell that there was something behind them is if the putative alien spacecraft was painting them with radar. That would tell them there is a transmitter behind them. Since the ERP of the transmitter is unknown, there's no way of calculating the range.
There would be no way to tell the difference between a change in ERP (Effective Radiated Power) and a change in distance. Directional antennas do not have a uniform gain pattern. There would be no way to tell the difference between a change in distance and a change in azimuth or elevation. Simply yawing the F4 could change the received power. It isn't radar. Get over it. You're simply wrong.

 

[Rramjet]

Indeed from the quote from Rev. Fr William B. Gill -
"We watched figures appear on top four of them no doubt that they are human."

Spotlights were also seen, it hovered, men on the top etc...

Interestingly the first amphibious sea kings Sikorsky S-61R and Seaguard Sikorsky S-62 were being flown for the first time, most likely still going through commissioning/testing phase - (away from prying Russian eyes perhaps seeing that US bases in Papa New Guinea were very far from Russia).

Something a little bit more wholesome, for you to swallow and inwardly digest perhaps?

I think the “quote” you cite is probably a “tabloid” misrepresentation…

From the transcript of Father Gill’s interview (Dec. 1959):
“Well, of course, the whole thing was most extraordinary; the fact that we saw what appeared to be humans beings on it, I think, is the important thing.”
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html) (emphasis mine. Rr)

From another source:
“Soon, four beings, similar to humans, emerged from the object.” (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)

And another:
“William B. Gill, an Anglican priest … observed craft-like UFOs -- one with Humanoid figures on top…”

From Father Gill’s diary:
“6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.” (http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)

And so on … Given the actual statements of Gill I think the tabloid report probably “emphasised” for effect. The grammar is also quite distorted, not anything like the “grammatically correct” entries in Gills diary - or even like how he speaks in his interview. Besides, such a categorical conclusion cannot be drawn on the evidence.

And then: Helicopters? Prototypes no less? Not flying until 1961 and later? Hovering over a remote village and waving to the natives for over 4 hours at a time… with no sound… you are delusional (to be polite).

Just to add, it was very dark then - the nearly half moon not rising for another 4 hours or so:

Ephemeris for 1959-06-26 19:00§, UT, 10°29'S, 150°04'E
* These values are geocentric.
Apparent* (W from S) Unrefracted Vis. Illum.
Right Asc Declination Azimuth Altitude Magn. Frac.
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ------
Sun 6h19m05s 23°22'10" 248°53'20" -32°06'30" -26.7 •••
Moon 23h24m12s -2°09'33" 244°43'46" 70°59'22" -10.5 61.8%

Therfore the drawing and descriptions are likely to have been pretty crap.

So…
Sunset:
About 6:30pm (dusk until about 7pm) ,
Moonrise:
About 11:30pm
Sighting time ranges:
June 26th: 6:45 PM - 11:04PM
June 27th: 6PM – 7:45PM

Then sightings began while it was still dusk (1st night) and in daylight (2nd night).

Moreover:

“Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft.”​

(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)

So the UFO was also “self” illuminated. Therefore (especially on the second “night”) the UFO would have been clearly visible in the daylight. Thus the drawings and descriptions could easily have been made.

Oh...no US "bases" in PNG. (edited in Rr)

 

[Jocce]

However we now know that the crew most certainly WOULD have been able to detect an object closing from behind and we also now know that there were "rear-vision" mirrors fitted to the F-4, so the pilots WOULD have been able to estimate distances - especially if they know the object is moving toward them and they knew the initial range (25nm) and they know how fast they are going and they know the apparent rate of closure. From that information they could have given the approximated range data as reported. In other words it WAS within their capability to do so.

Prove it then.

 

[Jocce]

I think the “quote” you cite is probably a “tabloid” misrepresentation…

Hmm, you mean unlike the true, undeniable facts you get from the tabloids that you constantly source?

ETA:

You claim the Teheran case is indicative of an alien presence but I still haven't seen any proof that:

1. Aliens have the technology necessary to perform as reported. Can they even fly supersonic speeds?

2. They are within flying distance of Teheran. How much gas can their tanks hold?

Got something on this?