UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belgian thought said:
(...)
Click to expand...

Belgian thought: Just because they looked like men, does not mean they were men.

The grammar of Father Gill is usually correct. . The tabloid report is totally at odds with his style. Besides, see above point.

A helicopter is just a nonsense explanation. I DO live by the sea and believe me, no matter how strong the wind, is you CAN hear a helicopter – especially the model you are talking about! Moreover, if the wind IS strong enough to drown out a helicopter…it would NOT be flying – let alone “hovering”!

Helicopters don’t have “decks” that allow numerous “men” to gather and wave at the waiting crowd…

Artists renditions? Come on, you have to do better than that!

The times you provide matched with the sighting times mean the UFO WAS intitially seen in daylight (especially on the second “night”!
 
Rramjet,
Do you realise that one of your problems is that the stories as so muddled.
It gives them around zero credibility.
 
Toke said:
Rramjet,
Do you realise that one of your problems is that the stories as so muddled.
It gives them around zero credibility.
Click to expand...
Somehow Rramjet equates this with consistency in eyewitness accounts wrt to the Rogue River episode. Of course, like Dr.Maccabee, it requires ignoring a lot of the actual content of the eyewitness accounts in order to do so...
 
RoboTimbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rramjet, I missed where you debunked the oilwell fires in the Campeche incident. The pilots obviously weren't seeing or describing oilwell fires so what do you think it was? Aliens?
 
Rramjet said:
Thus he could have known something was behind him PLUS using the mirrors available (remember he is an experience pilot - a squadron commander) it would have been possible for him to estimate the ranges as he did. Not saying his estimated ranges are accurate...but he DID know the initial distance between them (25nm) and he knew his own speed and he would have seen the closing rate of the trailing object (plus I seem to remember that the RWR can tell you if an object IS closing or not), so he provided range estimates. So NOT impossible to report as he did.
Click to expand...

This is so bogus a claim it is not funny. The passive radar only produces an alert that the aircraft is being scanned by radar and that is it. The "mirrors" may or may not have been on the aircraft. Making a range estimate on a point source is just plain ridiculous. The range data and claims of estimating through a mirror are just plain dumb. As for him being an experienced pilot in 1976, I would like to see the evidence. What were his flying hours in an F-4? What was his rank at the time? Was he a squadron commander at the time or not? Show the evidence to support this claim.
 
Just when I think this thread is going to die of boredom, Rramjet tries to take on an F-4 pilot! I know the phrase "lol" is trite, but it was literaly true when I was reading Roger Ramjet's Rebuttal.
 
Marcus said:
Just when I think this thread is going to die of boredom, Rramjet tries to take on an F-4 pilot! I know the phrase "lol" is trite, but it was literaly true when I was reading Roger Ramjet's Rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't know that Puddle Duck is a pilot, this is the internet. All we can do is to give people some benefit of doubt and judge by the coherency and factual correctness of their posts.

Puddle Duck have a rather un-ufoenthusiast tendency to let technical details get in the way of a good story. Like claiming it takes time to get from one point to another, and that a radar detector cannot measure range. :D
 
Since only speculation that these are alien encounters is allowed, I posit that the New Guinea incident was humanoid aliens with a custom designed blimp with a railing around the top akin to motor homes that NASCAR enthusiasts like. They were up untangling the christmas lights they left up all year (weird glow) and trying to stow the extension cords so they were all coiled up and hissing. Dammit, I just totally ripped off REO Speedwagon.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Rramjet, I missed where you debunked the oilwell fires in the Campeche incident. The pilots obviously weren't seeing or describing oilwell fires so what do you think it was? Aliens?
Click to expand...

come on now, be fair, you know the only thing Rramjet is capable of debunking is his own credibility
:D
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'd still like to see a pic of the Stealth Blimp in full stealth mode. A nice daylight pic, just the "Goodyear" logo floating in the air. Or "Gay Rodeo".
Click to expand...


Goodyear.gif
 
Toke said:
Well, we don't know that Puddle Duck is a pilot, this is the internet. All we can do is to give people some benefit of doubt and judge by the coherency and factual correctness of their posts.

Puddle Duck have a rather un-ufoenthusiast tendency to let technical details get in the way of a good story. Like claiming it takes time to get from one point to another, and that a radar detector cannot measure range. :D
Click to expand...
What do you suppose the respective odds are, on Puddle Duck being a pilot vs. Rramjet being a scientist?:)
 
Just checking in. It's been a while. Can I get a recap of the evidence presented in the last week or so?

Thank you
 
Rramjet said:
Puddle Duck. Why do you limit yourself to one single source of information and then complain it is not good enough? That you restrict yourself in such a manner is deliberately blinding yourself to potentially useful and clarifying information. There exist other sources that clarify MANY of the questions and concerns you raise.
Click to expand...

Like what? I thought we agreed some 30 pages ago that the routing slip is the only official documentation available?

Rramjet said:
You then make many unfounded assertions concerning Dr Maccabee (“The story really is almost incomprehensible from the aircraft side")
Click to expand...
When an experienced pilot tells you that there are strange things regarding the reported flight data in the story by maccabee I think it would be wise to listen. You never listen to expertice?

Rramjet said:
and Mr Pratt (“I assume is a UFO as ET supporter”). These are not supported by the evidence and in making such assertions you cast a shadow over whatever else you might have to say. You should stick to the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Why don't you?


Rramjet said:
Regarding F-4 #1 you stated: ”...I picked 420 for lack of anything better.”

But we know #1 approached a Mach 1. ”…the audio tapes disclose that the first F-04 made its approach at Mach 1.”
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)

I don’t personally have access to the audio tapes but the above website obviously did have access to the tapes and Maccabee mentions Iranian newspapers that report various bits from the tapes, so they were not completely unavailable
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's just an urban myth? Why not stick to the facts like you advice others?

Rramjet said:
As for the take off speeds. Again I reiterate. We have the “man on the ground” (electronics engineer Henry) telling us that the jets took of WITH afterburners - and also that was a “rare” occurrence.
Click to expand...

That's not mentioned in any official documentation. Stick to the facts or I will draw in Biggles stories again.


Rramjet said:
There were indeed three separate “beeper” incidents (as I outlined in my previous post). Since the UFO was in the area AND you say that the legitimate beepers transmit on a specific frequency AND that was slightly different to the frequency of the “beeper” picked up, THEN it could not have been a legitimate beeper and THEREFORE probably something to do with the UFO.
Click to expand...

Guessing. Stick to the facts please.


Rramjet said:
Yes, the F-4 IS “technically” radar blind in the rear, but since your statements we have discovered the RWR and the cockpit and canopy mirrors that could have been used as aids. It is therefore possible for the pilot (using all the information available to him) to then to report estimated ranges as he did.
Click to expand...

Stick to the facts and stop guessing. Either you show exactly how those range estimates are done or drop the issue.


Rramjet said:
Again you claim the pilot should have acted as if his avionics were NOT out of action. However, I contend that “inverting” the jet in such a situation is something the pilot most certainly would NOT have wanted to do! Remember he is an experienced pilot and “inverting” into a dive on a very dark night without avionics (including no communication with the tower OR with his backseater) is inviting immediate disorientation – NO THANKS says the pilot! Surely you can see that.
Click to expand...

And surely you are qualified to guess how a fighter pilot should handle his plane in certain situations? Seriously Rramjet. How can you pretend to be the utmost authority on every single subject without realizing how absurd that sounds to all of us here? Not to mention how little weight your uninformed opinion carries.

Rramjet said:
You stated:
"Using only this document, IRANIAN JET CASE.doc..."

I refuse to deliberately blind myself to potentially clarifying information about the case if it exists by restricting myself to a single documentary source (excellent though it is). If you have some sort of beef with Dr. Maccabee, then take it up with him, but this forum is open to ALL the evidence available.
Click to expand...

There is ONE single official source. The routing slip. We agreed on that already. Stick to what's in it or admit that you're making guesses based on what's written in various internet articles of dubious origin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom