• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
You did review the MUFON report. The radar data they procured through the FOIA show the altitude of all the craft in the air at that time, as well as their direction of travel and speed.

Meteors travel in a general downward direction until they impact, they 'fall' they don't fly 'horizontally'...
we're mixing up meteoroids, meteors and meteorites here.

But suffice to say that a the flight path of a meteor shower is NOT generally downward. I can personally vouch for that, but here's a link, demonstrating that the meteors appear out of a radiant point in the sky,
http://www.amsmeteors.org/showers.html
 
MUFON disinformation...

http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

If you're interested, read Tim's article at the link I posted earlier...

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/svilletx.htm

Scroll down to the section...

"Non-transponding but non-threatening"

Basically, an "unknown" object (that nobody reported seeing) was tracked on radar for over an hour traveling at less than 60 MPH heading toward the President's Crawford Ranch. Potential explanations include (depending on who you ask) alien spaceship, ultralight, or helicopter…

YMMV

I just finished reading the article you linked that attempted to debunk the MUFON report...

In the "Non-transponding but non-threatening" section you quote, there's more information about the radar contact traveling at a low speed. Therein you'll find that this object WAS traveling at a VERY low rate of speed for a long time, on an approach vector toward Crawford. This craft did NOT maintain this 'low' speed, but managed to accelerate to hundreds of mph, in a matter of seconds...

The article itself admits frankly that it does NOT conclusively debunk MUFON's conclusion, but rather proposes simple human error as the most likely reason for the reports.

The biggest issue I have with the debunking attempt, is the willingness to "cherry-pick" at the weak spots in the report, rather than addressing the report as a whole. The strongest point they ignore is the witnesses reports of "silent craft being chased by noisy military jets". At least one group of witnesses reported seeing BOTH an unknown craft AND military jets... THIS was most certainly NOT mistaken identity. Another issue I had with the article was it's demanding "conclusive scientific measurements of distance". The article's writer dismisses out of hand 'estimates' of speed, size, or distances, and utilizes it as a debunking point. *Because the numbers given are merely estimates, we can thusly conclude that they are probably mistaken/inaccurate, and therefore dismissed completely...

The only part I agree with was this:

"While this writing offers probable answers to many of the major questions raised by the Schulze-Powell MUFON report, it does not "seal the deal" and offer a definitive conclusion."

Meaning that we simply don't know what caused these sightings and radar images, or what our jets were chasing.

---

ETA:

The article writer wrote:

"...3. As I previously stated, if the object was large, it certainly would not provide a radar reflection that was the weakest possible signal. If it had stealth technology, it would not have been recorded at all. Most of the estimates for size are based on individuals trying to determine angular sizes from memory weeks and months after the event. The Seldon sighting data was obtained by interviewing the witness at the location THREE MONTHS after the actual event. Expecting accurate angular size estimates months later can not be considered 100% reliable. As we will see, estimating size based on lights in the sky can be misleading as well."

Our stealth craft aren't invisible to radar, right? They simply have a smaller radar signature, as to not appear like a normal aircraft...?

So, that this over 500 ft long craft provided THE weakest radar signature as categorized by the FAA IS evidence that the craft was at least partially cloaked in some kind of stealth technology.
 
They were geese alright. It was full dark and we were all waiting turns on my brother's telescope. We were all (5 or 6 of us) looking up and pointing out things when they flew over the first time. The geese were lit from below by diffuse street light glow and our minds filled in a solid craft from just the triangular shape. The geese were dead quiet on the first run.

There are plenty of fields and ponds around where they could land for the night.
The funny thing is, as we were relating what we saw (in the minute prior to the first honk), my friend was describing something very different from what I saw.
When the geese wheeled back around (from a direction consistent from where they were previously seen) it was obvious they were what we had seen.

I am extremely familiar with the night sky and an somewhat of an amateur astronomer. This was the first time that I had my worldview shaken, even though it was only for a minute.
My original telling is on here somewhere. I will look for it and see what, if any discrepancies there are with my present memories.

So, you never lost sight of the formation, then?
 
You did review the MUFON report. The radar data they procured through the FOIA show the altitude of all the craft in the air at that time, as well as their direction of travel and speed.

MUFONs effort to take two random contacts to create a high speed target was just a bunch of nonsense. If you actually looked at the data, you will see that there were other random contacts generated during the time period in question. They chose not to use those in order to create a single high speed track between two points. It was just plain garbage.

What the radar data really showed was that the witnesses, more than likely, saw the F-16 formation and thought they were UFOs. There is nothing in the radar data that indicates some alien spaceships over 500 feet in size were in the area.
 
Last edited:
So, that this over 500 ft long craft provided THE weakest radar signature as categorized by the FAA IS evidence that the craft was at least partially cloaked in some kind of stealth technology.

right, so what youre saying here is that they are using american designed stealth technology, like they had the advanced tech to get here across interstellar distances (or if you prefer from a different dimension) but yet are only on the same tech level as America currently is when it comes to anti radar paint

you wanna dry that out you could use it for fertiliser
:D
 
The article itself admits frankly that it does NOT conclusively debunk MUFON's conclusion, but rather proposes simple human error as the most likely reason for the reports..

If you haven't noticed (or you are ignoring me), I am the author of this article. I pointed you towards the section regarding the high speed contact. There is absolutely nothing that indicates MUFON's conclusions about a high speed contact in the area is correct. They took two completely random contacts and drew a line between them. That is not scientific and proves they were desperately trying to come up with anything to justify the furor they created concerning the Stephenville events.

As for the "weak" signal explanation you attempted, it is false. The radar used by the FAA is not designed to detect craft with stealth techonology. In fact, the FAA radar equipment is rather antique (being 70s design). A stealth plane would be invisible. The weak signal is more indicative of random noise generated by the radar equipment giving a spurious signal. There are hundreds if not thousands in the mounds of radar data they obtained. What makes these two contacts any different than the rest of the noise?
 
Last edited:
If you haven't noticed (or you are ignoring me), I am the author of this article. I pointed you towards the section regarding the high speed contact. There is absolutely nothing that indicates MUFON's conclusions about a high speed contact in the area is correct. They took two completely random contacts and drew a line between them. That is not scientific and proves they were desperately trying to come up with anything to justify the furor they created concerning the Stephenville events.

As for the "weak" signal explanation you attempted, it is false. The radar used by the FAA is not designed to detect craft with stealth techonology. In fact, the FAA radar equipment is rather antique (being 70s design). A stealth plane would be invisible. The weak signal is more indicative of random noise generated by the radar equipment giving a spurious signal. There are hundreds if not thousands in the mounds of radar data they obtained. What makes these two contacts any different than the rest of the noise?

Ah...they correlate with actual physical sightings...?

---

I read somewhere that an F-117 pilot's helmet is the most visible radar signal on the plane, and that the 'contact' looks like a bird rather than a plane.

The object here was over 500 ft long, but gave a much smaller radar signal.

That said I openly admit I know jack squat about radar systems or their abilities, old or new.

---

My apologies for missing that it was your article. I'll be back later today to pose a few questions about some of the contents, if you don't mind.
 
Ah...they correlate with actual physical sightings...

No they don't. If you read my article you would know this. The contact track they created from two random points went to the NW. ALL of the witnesses describe their UFOs as proceeding in a west/south/southwest direction. Therefore, accepting the claim by MUFON that it corresponds to the witness observations is blind belief.

During the ten minute period that MUFON selected for analysis, there were six random contacts generated in this area of Texas. MUFON cherry picked TWO out of the six to create their high speed contact. That is nothing but an effort to create something from nothing.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the FAA radar had trouble tracking one of the non-stealth F-16s during this time period. Contact FL5214D (see pages 34 and 35 of the report) did not always get recorded by the radar. However, there was enough data (along with it's transponder) to determine what it was.
 
Last edited:
So, you never lost sight of the formation, then?

Yes, we lost sight of the formation for about a minute. When they returned and honked, they were still in the same (or close enough) formation with the same apparent size, and coming from the direction that a circling flock of geese would be expected. I suppose that an alien craft could have taken advantage of the proximity of the flock of geese and pulled a fast one to mess with our heads, but I would have to say that the first object was indeed the same as the second.
The initial pass presented us with no point of reference and our minds did the rest. On that first pass I was convinced I saw something extraordinary and had trouble coming to grips with it. My friends all had slightly to major differences in their observations. Sounds like a standard UFO report, eh? Subjective data becoming objective data because the mind fills in the blanks convincingly.
 
Good point.

That, and Geemack is correct. I have relatively little experience in geese sighting. Maybe only once every other year or so, for the last 30 years or even less. I am always bewildered at how far their 'honks' carry. With the dense tall tree line around my yard, I almost always 'hear' them before I see them.


Your point is pretty good too. They're noisy critters, no doubt about it, and your observations do indeed match mine. Just being the Devil's Advocate, I was.


Now, Wolrab claimed to have two 'connected' sightings. First he and his group 'saw' a silent solid triangular silent shape fly over... Question for Wolrab: "Did you see the thing 'turn' and head back toward and over you, or were the two sights just that '2' different sightings?"

I posed the question, "...is it 'possible' that the first sighting WAS a UFO?"


Wolrab's question, but my two cents is that I'm not ruling anything out on the current evidence.



Again, this comes from relatively little experience, but I've never seen geese fly in a 'closed' triangular pattern. They are always in a non-se-metrical open "V" formation.


Depends on conditions, I think. The V formation is used by the geese to reduce the overall drag of the flock, and they'll close right up if it gets windy.



I think the phrase, "People see what they 'expect' to see.", IS true.


That's hit the nail on the head, alrighty.
 
Yes, we lost sight of the formation for about a minute. When they returned and honked, they were still in the same (or close enough) formation with the same apparent size, and coming from the direction that a circling flock of geese would be expected. I suppose that an alien craft could have taken advantage of the proximity of the flock of geese and pulled a fast one to mess with our heads, but I would have to say that the first object was indeed the same as the second.
The initial pass presented us with no point of reference and our minds did the rest. On that first pass I was convinced I saw something extraordinary and had trouble coming to grips with it. My friends all had slightly to major differences in their observations. Sounds like a standard UFO report, eh? Subjective data becoming objective data because the mind fills in the blanks convincingly.

Possibly...

OR the first fly over was not a flock of geese, and was indeed a 'solid' object.

The world may never know.
 
Possibly...

OR the first fly over was not a flock of geese, and was indeed a 'solid' object.

The world may never know.
And that neatly sums up your and Rramjet's position doesn't it.

It was probably geese, but it might have been a UFO!


:rolleyes:
 
No they don't. If you read my article you would know this. The contact track they created from two random points went to the NW. ALL of the witnesses describe their UFOs as proceeding in a west/south/southwest direction. Therefore, accepting the claim by MUFON that it corresponds to the witness observations is blind belief.

During the ten minute period that MUFON selected for analysis, there were six random contacts generated in this area of Texas. MUFON cherry picked TWO out of the six to create their high speed contact. That is nothing but an effort to create something from nothing.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the FAA radar had trouble tracking one of the non-stealth F-16s during this time period. Contact FL5214D (see pages 34 and 35 of the report) did not always get recorded by the radar. However, there was enough data (along with it's transponder) to determine what it was.

I'll right, I'll first concede that I read about 80% of your piece. There was a lot there.

Second, I am gonna drop my objection to the above point. I am not yet familiar enough with the radar data to refute your conclusion.

Now, since it was your piece, why did YOU do so much cherry picking???

You provided the eye witness statements, but offered no other plausible explanation for the "welding arc bright lights being chased by military jets".

The first thing that put me off were your remarks about the initial official statement offered by the military had NO jets in the airspace on the time and day in question. I understand that the military isn't perfect (can any say WMD's in Iraq?), but you act like they pulled some green officer out of bed and told him to give a public statement with zero information. Issuing official public statements isn't something ANY government agency takes lightly, such statements are weighed, measured, and vetted...more than once. UFOlogists harken such mis-steps back to the Roswell incident. First, it WAS a crashed saucer, then it was a weather balloon, finally the claimed it was a high altitude parachute drop, to explain the 'bodies' reported.

The next thing that bothered me was your complete ignorance of the 'audio' evidence, or rather complete lack thereof. ALL of the witnesses describe "no noise of any jet engines". Not a single witness reported 'hearing' anything associated the welding arc bright lighted craft. This in my mind IS a very valuable piece of consistent evidence. What travels as fast as jets, but leaves no audio signature? I don't know if you're aware of this, but other sightings of UFO's have included this quality. And yet, your article ignored it completely.

The last thing I'll accuse you of is also ignoring the reports of seeing the objects being 'chased', meaning that witnesses saw BOTH military jets AND 'something else'. You led with a picture of an F-16 with a big bright ass light atop the tail fin. Suggesting that "THIS is what they saw." I've been to air shows, I lived in Lawton Oklahoma for a couple of years, and have witnessed almost every manner of modern military air craft flying, day and night. My step father (he was the CO in a M270 MLRS in the U.S. Army), whom I lived with at the time would identify the craft, and provided me with cues as to which was which. I have NEVER seen a craft "blink out", when flying in formation. I was told that to do so would endanger pilot, plane, and other air traffic.

Give me some time to familiarize myself with the actual radar data, and then we'll discuss
your interpretation. I would like to add that I really appreciate the time you took to write the article. Most would just rubberneck the whole event, without really digging into the meat of the reports. You are if nothing else sincere. And I like that, even if I found your debunking attempt a little lacking, as you also noted.
 
Last edited:
And that neatly sums up your and Rramjet's position doesn't it.

It was probably geese, but it might have been a UFO!


:rolleyes:

It MIGHT have been geese. It ALSO 'might' have been something else. Without more information there's NO WAY to know.

While I can't speak directly for Rramjet, I can say that he seems like the type to keep an open mid, as do I. And while you may roll your eyes at that, I think it is a fine quality to demonstrate. Unless you have conclusive proof that it WAS geese, it would be foolish to jump to that stance.
 
While I can't speak directly for Rramjet, I can say that he seems like the type to keep an open mid, as do I. And while you may roll your eyes at that, I think it is a fine quality to demonstrate. Unless you have conclusive proof that it WAS geese, it would be foolish to jump to that stance.


Rramjet took the stance that you take, that aliens exist. He wrote hundreds of posts supposedly attempting to provide evidence for that position. Not a single speck of legitimate evidence was included, pretty much exactly equaling your contribution in that regard. He did write thousands of words which amounted to nothing more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance. Your assessment of him being open minded is not supported by evidence.

And how about you, King of the Americas, a simple yes or no please, do you have objective evidence, something other than your ignorance and incredulity, to support his and your claim that aliens exist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom