UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sledge]

Someone sees a flock of geese, but we must maintain an open mind to the possibility that it was something else? Why, exactly?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Someone sees a flock of geese, but we must maintain an open mind to the possibility that it was something else? Why, exactly?

Because from there it is an easy step to paranoia? Next your dog starts talking to you and then people morph back and forth into lizards when you look at them out of the corner of your eye. If you are really good at this, you can get free room and board for the rest of your life. Don't mess up though 'cause electroshock therapy is not very pleasant.

 

[King of the Americas]

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?

I don't know if you read all of my posts under my thread, but 'I' don't believe in UFO's as being piloted by non-humans.

I KNOW they exist. I have seen a set with mine own eyes.

Moreover, I despise the term "aliens", as they are no more alien then we are. For as long as we could record events, we've featured 'them' in our media...

You want/seek "indisputable proof", which there is none. But there's plenty of evidence, your standards are just too high to acknowledge it. Regardless, what we NEED now is more investigative efforts, and not just the re-milling over of old evidence.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Well, in my years of naval experience, I can assure that it is not uncommon for even high ranking officers to issue incorrect statements simply because they don't have the correct information available to them. I can show numerous cases where this has happened in recent years. James McGaha informed me that the officer who made the statement was not aware of the aircraft and simply made a comment without even checking. Not very smart but when it comes to UFOs, the USAF is really not that concerend about them (contrary to popular belief).

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.

I did not mention it simply because the distances involved were pretty large. Do you hear jets flying nearby? I have an airport less than 4 miles away. I see the jets landing but I don't hear them even on quiet evenings. When I was in the Navy, I lived only a short distance from Hawaii International airport with Hickam's jets flying in and out of there. I could discern what types of jets were landing by the USAF. I rarely heard them. At closest approach, the jets were a good 3-4 miles away from the witnesses (that is just the distance on the ground, if you take into account altitude it is more like 5 miles).

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.

This "chase" happened after the events involving the radar contact (by the witness estimates it was 10 minutes later but this was just a guess). In fact, the jets that were supposedly chasing the UFO are identified in the report. They were just two aircraft returning to Carswell. There was no UFO for them to chase found in the radar data though.

The sighting around 6:30 is the one that involved the radar contact. The witnesses did not report seeing the two formations of aircraft at the time. However, they did report seeing a large UFO with strobe lights moving in the same direction around the same time. I am sure you may be familiar with all sorts of aircraft but we have no idea what the witnesses were familiar with. Witnesses have misidentified aircraft and formation of aircraft as UFOs before and it stands to reason that this could be the case here.

If you want to believe they saw a huge alien spaceship (or whatever you choose to propose) that the pilots did not try to avoid, ignored, and all the other people who were out that night ignored, go right ahead. However, it is far more likely that the witnesses saw the formation of F-16s and thought it was one object (the 'airship effect'). Other witnesses who were out that night probably recognized the lights for what they were, which is why the MUFON report only selected six reports to make their case.

 

[King of the Americas]

Someone sees a flock of geese, but we must maintain an open mind to the possibility that it was something else? Why, exactly?

Because you are misrepresenting the facts.

There were 2 sightings, as acknowledged by the teller. The group saw a solid triangular shaped silent object fly over. They watched and LOST sight of the formation. Minutes later they saw and HEARD geese flying in a similar shape.

The conclusion they reached that it was 'probably' the geese the first time too was unwarranted.

It MIGHT have been geese, it might have been something else. Personally, I've never witnessed a U-turn by a formation of geese. I've seen them fly over and maintain speed and direction. I've seen the come in and land on water from the North East, and when they left they continued on their South Western trajectory.

That said, if you can produce some footage of a V-formation of geese fly over the same spot after making a U-turn, I'll concede and give 'more' weight to the goose possibility. But even with that, I don't think you could conclusively say what the first sighting actually was.

Why is it so hard NOT to reach a conclusion, if you don't have all the evidence???

 

[Marduk]

Moreover, I despise the term "aliens", as they are no more alien then we are. For as long as we could record events, we've featured 'them' in our media...

You want/seek "indisputable proof", which there is none. But there's plenty of evidence, your standards are just too high to acknowledge it. Regardless, what we NEED now is more investigative efforts, and not just the re-milling over of old evidence.

ok again, this is because you would rather believe your own interpretation of religious iconography than that of experts, our standards arent too high, yours are just too low as you are still insisting that the lord went before moses as a cloud ufo by day and a fire ufo by night.
ridiculous

 

[Marduk]

The group saw a solid triangular shaped silent object fly over.

cool so as well as having ships that have american stealth technology they have ships that are the same shape as american stealth aircraft, youre sure it wasn't god or something instead?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You want/seek "indisputable proof", which there is none. But there's plenty of evidence, your standards are just too high to acknowledge it.

Perhaps you would return to your own thread to discuss this?

 

[wollery]

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.

There's nothing wrong with an open mind, but one must be careful that it isn't so open that one's brains fall out.

Since there were geese flying in the area, and geese have been known to cause UFO reports, and fly in a triangular formation, and the "UFO" was seen to be triangular in shape, it would be foolish to jump to any conclusion other than that it was geese.

Of course, it could have been a UFO, but given the above it is highly unlikely.

 

[TjW]

Well, in fact, they could have been captured by aliens, taken aboard their ship, and interrogated for days, then traveled backward in time and inspected the dinosaurs, then had false memories implanted by a heretofore unknown technology before being released in the same place and time. I mean, you can't rule it out.

 

[Sledge]

Because you are misrepresenting the facts.

Nope.

There were 2 sightings, as acknowledged by the teller. The group saw a solid triangular shaped silent object fly over. They watched and LOST sight of the formation. Minutes later they saw and HEARD geese flying in a similar shape.

Yup.

The conclusion they reached that it was 'probably' the geese the first time too was unwarranted.

... and this is where you start to lose it.

It MIGHT have been geese, it might have been something else. Personally, I've never witnessed a U-turn by a formation of geese. I've seen them fly over and maintain speed and direction. I've seen the come in and land on water from the North East, and when they left they continued on their South Western trajectory.

That said, if you can produce some footage of a V-formation of geese fly over the same spot after making a U-turn, I'll concede and give 'more' weight to the goose possibility. But even with that, I don't think you could conclusively say what the first sighting actually was.

I don't care what you personally have seen. I've never personally seen a nuclear reactor, but I'm fairly confident they exist. Would you like to present some evidence for your assertion other than "well I've never seen it"?

Why is it so hard NOT to reach a conclusion, if you don't have all the evidence???

Why shouldn't I reach a conclusion? Man sees something in sky. A few minutes later, man sees same shape in sky but this time gets a better look and sees it's a flock of geese. Now, if you've got some evidence that it wasn't geese, I'm totally open to hearing it. But until then, I won't be rushing to the location with binoculars and a "Earth Welcomes Careful Space Drivers" sign.

 

[Marduk]

did the geese have "gay rodeo" written on them ?

 

[King of the Americas]

Astrophotographer,

Something struck me as I was considering my retort to your last wrought.

"Some planes can and DO travel taster than the speed of sound, which is still WAY slower than the speed of *LIGHT*."

Therefore, to the untrained eyes and ears, a super sonic sonic would be 'seen' in apparent 'silence', and then you'd 'hear' a jet fly by at a high rate of speed...?

My first experience with this affect was as a drag race, that featured a jet propelled semi-truck.

This said, I'm not suggesting this was the case, for these sightings. What I'd really like to know more about is who WERE these witnesses, what training, if any did they have?

---

Now back to your specific planks-

1. That the Military has, does, and will continue to offer up mis-, dis-, and sometimes even accurate information up to the public for media consumption. Absolute truth is not guaranteed, ever. I'll concede this point.

2. Sound DOES travel, it just takes a while, depending on obstructions solid and gaseous (temperature variations), but it WILL get there eventually if only faintly. 'I' have lived within 3-4 miles of an airport (THE longest 3 months EVER), I couldn't ignore it, so I did what any bored weirdo does and I tried to map out the sounds, so that I could begin to estimate what was coming and how fast it would get here. Flyovers really mess with you, without a visual. If you 'see' a plane do YOU stop to listen for it? If you saw an 'unusual' one would you listen more intently for it? I would. And if 'I' saw something 'unidentified', I'd certainly attempt to collect any audio (which I did, my sighting lacked 'noise' of any kind). ALL of these people reported NO SOUND, even the 'slow' flying one... This is key. The 'slow' one made no noise, and none of the others did either. We don't 'hear' what we don't listen for. Did you 'try' to ignore the airtraffic?

3. The radar data showed the planes were 'chasing' nothing. But didn't you argue in your article that one of the F-16's was missing from the radar data? My point is that the people saw "2" different things, NOT just military jets. What you are suggesting is that it takes an expert to tell if two objects are the same... I may not be able to tell what everything IS for certain, but I can certainly tell you what it isn't. But even the least trained layman ever could look at some and see if it is the 'same' as something right next to it. 'I' don't want to believe anything. I finding 'knowing' much more comforting. Seek the evidence, and you will arrive at the same conclusion that Rramjet and I have- "There's stuff under intelligent control that isn't ours, up there."

 

[GeeMack]

Your ignorance is noted, King of the Americas, but really, this isn't that tough. I asked you a simple yes or no question in Post 3200. Do you have objective evidence, something other than your arguments from ignorance and incredulity, to support Rramjet's and your claim that aliens exist?

 

[King of the Americas]

Nope.
Yup.
... and this is where you start to lose it.
I don't care what you personally have seen. I've never personally seen a nuclear reactor, but I'm fairly confident they exist. Would you like to present some evidence for your assertion other than "well I've never seen it"?
Why shouldn't I reach a conclusion? Man sees something in sky. A few minutes later, man sees same shape in sky but this time gets a better look and sees it's a flock of geese. Now, if you've got some evidence that it wasn't geese, I'm totally open to hearing it. But until then, I won't be rushing to the location with binoculars and a "Earth Welcomes Careful Space Drivers" sign.

The only 'evidence' at hand is the account given. They said they "saw" a silent, solid triangle fly over.

Geese 'usually' fly in a noisy, 'empty', "V" formation which they DID see...in the "2nd" sighting.

This said, I'd like to herein include my cousin's "expert" opinion, as he is a wild life specialist, who is now an assistant professor at Texas Tech. He just told me that: Upon approach of a water hole, geese WILL go silent...and 'circle' the water before they land...UNLESS there are geese already on the water (or decoys), which will induce 'calling', which is intended to keep everybody together. When I asked about formation 'break-up' & V-formation U-turns, he said that since they are actually going tomorrow to observe and count geese, that he'd get back to me with some solid information.

How's that?

 

[GeeMack]

The only 'evidence' at hand is the account given. They said they "saw" a silent, solid triangle fly over.

Geese 'usually' fly in a noisy, 'empty', "V" formation which they DID see...in the "2nd" sighting.

This said, I'd like to herein include my cousin's "expert" opinion, as he is a wild life specialist, who is now an assistant professor at Texas Tech. He just told me that: Upon approach of a water hole, geese WILL go silent...and 'circle' the water before they land...UNLESS there are geese already on the water (or decoys), which will induce 'calling', which is intended to keep everybody together. When I asked about formation 'break-up' & V-formation U-turns, he said that since they are actually going tomorrow to observe and count geese, that he'd get back to me with some solid information.

How's that?

Sounds like you're trying to rely on an argument from incredulity in order to maintain your ignorance. Got any actual evidence that aliens exist?

 

[Sledge]

So it was geese. Glad we can agree on that. Now, about that evidence for aliens...?

 

[King of the Americas]

Perhaps you would return to your own thread to discuss this?

Nah...let it die, already.

 

[King of the Americas]

ok again, this is because you would rather believe your own interpretation of religious iconography than that of experts, our standards arent too high, yours are just too low as you are still insisting that the lord went before moses as a cloud ufo by day and a fire ufo by night.
ridiculous

Nooo...

'I' have SEEN something I still can't identify. 'I' am the evidence.

'I' can accept me, you won't.

...know this, you do so at your own peril in your search for truth.

 

[King of the Americas]

There's nothing wrong with an open mind, but one must be careful that it isn't so open that one's brains fall out.
.

Wow, that's profound...

Would you mind if I added that that to my tagline? I mean, that just blows me away, did you just make that up? It's almost poetic.

---

Geese DON'T form a 'solid' triangle. V's are 'similar' to triangles, but they aren't the same.