UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tizzy]

That mess is meant to achieve what , exactly? It's barely readable.

So I wasn't the only one?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I stated:
RoboTimbo (#3360, p. 84) contradicts earlier an skeptical post by stating that eyewitness evidence WILL convict a murderer. Hypocracy? You bet!


It is hypocritical because as I understand the sceptical position as stated in numerous posts, eyewitness evidence is anecdotal evidence and that is NEVER enough (or should NOT be enough) to convict anyone in a capital case. Yet you suggested that it WOULD be enough. Now unless you don’t agree with your fellow skeptics on the issue ( a possibility which you can either confirm or deny) then you are being hypocritical in your approach to the topic.

Others (your fellow bleevers) have stated that aliens are of ET origin. You are being hypocritical in stating that they are not. Correct your own hyprocisy before accusing me of it.

 

[SnidelyW]

Because none of it is clear cut. All videos are grainy and of poor quality, the same goes for pics. Eyewitnesses are notorious for seeing what they want to see. An example is a car smash, you have say, ten direct witnesses who when asked to write down their version of events you get ten different versions of the same event. Even the colour of the cars involved and the drivers are messed up by the ten witnesses.

You are correct- it could happen that all ten witnesses get it all wrong, but it could also happen that after interviewing the ten witnesses a pattern begins to emerge. Some accounts say the cars were blue instead of black, but most investigators will also tell you that they are looking for trends- the dark car struck the light car, for example, and generally begin to get a clearer idea of the event.

That is the point I am making regarding the skeptics out of hand dismissal of eyewitness accounts- by doing so they are deliberately eliminating themselves from recognizing any trends in the testimony.

As for photos, analysis of photos, if deemed legitimate (meaning not tampered with) often tell investigators what did not happen as much as what did happen.

So your point of 'none of it is clear cut' is exactly what I am reffering to when I am alarmed at the dismissal of evidence.

 

[SnidelyW]

This thread is now up to 85 pages. So far I think maybe 3 or 4 cases have been discussed. For people who dismiss things out of hand, we sure do take the long way around.

I am relatively new here, but is there a pre-determined page limit on discussion I am unaware of?

If there is, let me know please.

 

[Akhenaten]

So I wasn't the only one?

The Babylonians have a saying:

TLDR

(like whats the point anyway, I already know what its gonna say)

Wise are my Northern allies.

 

[Akhenaten]

How much do you know about aircraft instrumentation and avionics?

How did you come by that knowledge?

What I do know about aircraft and avionics I don’t need to expand upon here because all that I need to know for the current point is the accepted definition of “avionics”. That is for example:

<snip somewhat redundant definition of avionics>

Thanks for your answer.

Trustez-moi, gentlehommes.

Between us, Puddle Duck and I know exactly how this stuff works. I'm just waiting on a response to an earlier question of mine to Monsieur le Rramjet.

You have your response (above) and whatever else I know about the subject is unnecessary to disclose at this point.

Puddle Duck I will answer your post ASAP.

I've had 25 years experience as a military avionics technician and Puddle Duck is an F4 Pilot.

What exactly do you think you're likely to disclose that's gonna be news to us?

 

[wollery]

You are correct- it could happen that all ten witnesses get it all wrong, but it could also happen that after interviewing the ten witnesses a pattern begins to emerge. Some accounts say the cars were blue instead of black, but most investigators will also tell you that they are looking for trends- the dark car struck the light car, for example, and generally begin to get a clearer idea of the event.

That is the point I am making regarding the skeptics out of hand dismissal of eyewitness accounts- by doing so they are deliberately eliminating themselves from recognizing any trends in the testimony.

As for photos, analysis of photos, if deemed legitimate (meaning not tampered with) often tell investigators what did not happen as much as what did happen.

So your point of 'none of it is clear cut' is exactly what I am reffering to when I am alarmed at the dismissal of evidence.

You mentioned trends in the evidence before. I asked for clarification, and recieved none.

Any chance you could be so kind this time?

 

[Rramjet]

Wowsers! A lot of posts in the last day. Since the following has been hanging fire since the day after Rramjet went on Sabbatical, and he’s back, I’ll throw it up and start reading.

Lets take a look at the no-tank for Air Intercept Alert

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Actually Puddle Duck qualified “ID” with a low cruising speed (for an F-4). I merely contended that actually they would NOT have wanted to mess around finding out WHAT the object was…they would have wanted to get out there quickly (hence the Mach speeds reported). Puddle Duck’s option was a leisurely cruise (for an F-4), while the reported facts indicated that the F-4s were actually travelling at high speed. That was my point.

Tell me why they would have taken roughly an extra hour to drop the tanks.
Lets make the assumption of Rramjet that #1 F-1 had no drop tanks on, but went as fast as he could for the intercept. Tehran is at 4,000 ft. and Shahrokhi is at 5,600 ft Could we assume that he flew there at about 10k Ft? If you don’t like that altitude, select another of your choice. The maximum speed he can use is 750 KIAS (see the chart –speed restrictions http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=312&pictureid=1911 )and is above mach. The bogey is 40 miles north of Tehran when he arrives (actually a mach-1 arrival speed would be logical if he got the message “ the unknown is now departing to the north, push up your speed to get an ID), so it takes him about 12 ½ minutes to get within 25 miles of it. The Combat Fuel Flow for a stabilized level flight with only Sparrows and Sidewinders on is slightly more than 1400 lbs./minute at 10k ft. Doing the calculation for that flight time at 1400 lbs/min, he would burn 17,500 lbs. The F-4 carries 12,000 lbs of fuel internally. Another way of looking at it is almost 9 minutes of flight. Guess how far he has to walk.
And no, 420 knots is not a low speed cruise. What Rramjat got wrong from my quote is that 420 knots is an optimum combat cruise speed. A low cruise speed is 300- 360 knots.

Puddle Duck…? I assume maths is not your strong point… how did you get to be a pilot…?

Lets look at some basics:

Mach 1 = 767mph
The bogey is 40 nm from takeoff = 46 miles
At mach 1 the jet is travelling (767/60=) 12.7 miles per minute.
The jet closes to within 25 nm (approx 29 miles).
This means distance from takeoff to “contact” is 46-29 = 17 miles.
If the jet was travelling at mach 1 then it would take just 1 min 20 sec to get there!
However, he has to take off and get up to speed so maybe we can give him another …what… 15 seconds (?) making 1 min and 35 or 40s at the outside to get there…

Now… the records indicate that the first jet was only flying for LESS than 10 minutes. This is precisely in line with Puddle Duck’s estimate of the amount of fuel WITHOUT external tanks (12000lbs of fuel at 1400lbs per min is actually just over 8 1/2 mins - not 9).

For example the Routing Slip states “As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nm he lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF and intercom), he broke off the intercept and headed back to Shahrokhi…”

So no need to suppose external tanks of the first F-4 and the pilot had no need to “walk” anywhere! (even if we suppose his speed to be Puddle Duck’s “cruising speed” of 400 (or so) mph for ALL of his flight time!). And a number of sources put the “cruising speed” for an F-4 at 585 mph! (see below)

Maths is demonstrably NOT Puddle Duck’s strong point and this of course makes his fuel burn estimates suspect too! (but for this example let’s not quibble…)

Now let’s look at the burner takeoff.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
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.
and
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Regarding charts …sorry but the links don’t work so I cannot follow the calculations… AND you make one HUGE assumption … 40C?
You don’t think that 105 degrees F is not a fair temperature for summertime in a high desert? The Great Basin, Mojave, and Sonoran deserts, all get appreciably above that. The news outlets are constantly remarking about the army around Bagdad having to bear 120 degrees plus in the summer. But if you don’t like that one, pick one that you like and do the graphs. I don’t mind.

Since you didn’t do the original graph calculation, I’ll give you the answers. The heavy summer takeoff using burner takes 8,400 ft.. That is pretty much the max distance for a burner takeoff that will be seen there. The same takeoff using mil power takes 20,000 ft. Remember, the runway length is 10,000 ft. I did check the weather there and for middle/late November, the lows are in the mid to upper 20’s. So for a late night heavy weight takeoff, the distance is 11,800 ft. Even using the parameters of the standard air-to-air load, in Aug., which is pretty light at 49,000 lbs, the length is 12,000 ft. The runway is still 10,000 ft.

Again I suspect Puddle Duck does NOT know F-4s at ALL! I can now safely assume he is NOT an F-4 pilot at all. What a load of rubbish he is providing us! For example…

According to a number of sources the “loaded” weight of an F-4 is 41000 lbs (NOT 49000) AND “Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)!

Lets just provide the full specs so that we can see more clearly Puddle Duck’s errors!

General characteristics
• Crew: 2
• Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
• Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
• Height: 16 ft 6 in (5.0 m)
• Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
• Airfoil: NACA 0006.4-64 root, NACA 0003-64 tip
• Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
• Loaded weight: 41,500 lb (18,825 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)
• Powerplant: 2× General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, 17,845 lbf (79.4 kN) each
• Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0224
• Drag area: 11.87 ft² (1.10 m²)
• Aspect ratio: 2.77
• Fuel capacity: 1,994 U.S. gal (7,549 L) internal, 3,335 U.S. gal (12,627 L) with three external tanks (370 U.S. gal (1,420 L) tanks on the outer wing hardpoints and either a 600 or 610 U.S. gal (2,310 or 2,345 L) tank for the centerline station).
• Maximum landing weight: 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
Performance
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
• Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
• Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)
• Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
• Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
• Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
• Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
• lift-to-drag: 8.58
• Thrust/weight: 0.86 at loaded weight, 0.58 at MTOW
• Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)
• Landing roll: 3,680 ft (1,120 m) at 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II#Specifications_.28F-4E.29)

So… runway length = 10000ft (if we believe Puddle Duck and I suspect even THIS now…) and the F-4 needs less that half that length!

Puddle Duck, I simply no longer believe you at this point. You will have to provide evidence for your assertions. It is plain that you have been mistaken in nearly ALL aspects of the F-4 specifications to this point, how CAN we believe you on this point?

I am therefore not going to read any further into your post. I simply cannot take any of your F-4 “experiences” at face value and MUST therefore ignore anything further you have to say about the subject of F-4s until you provide sourced data that shows that what you are stating to be either SOP for F-4s or correct in any other way. Your credibility concerning F-4s has been shot to pieces and I am therefore disinclined to engage with you in any further debate on F-4s. Come back to me when you have sourced EVIDENCE to support your assertions.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, a few questions.

What shape is a blimp when viewed face on?

IF we take the blimp hypothesis to be correct for a moment, then from the viewing angle of the observers (below and to the front) at Rogue River then the answer MUST be elliptical.

So, are the descriptions of the object being round inconsistent with a blimp?

The observers ALL described the object as “circular” (!), one even “like a coin”. The object maintained this aspect throughout – even when it turned away from the observers and moved off. This is ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT with the aspect a blimp would present to an observer if it performed such a manoeuvre as the witnesses described!

What shape did the two observers with binoculars describe the object as having after they said it turned?

Circular!

So, are their descriptions of the general shape of the object inconsistent with a blimp?

Most definitely!

Are you trying to suggest that there were no blimps at all in operation on the US West coast at the time of the sighting?

No… we KNOW on the historical evidence that there were NO USN or USNR blimps operational on the West Coast at the time. However, we DO know Goodyear was operating ONE blimp within 200 miles - but there is NO evidence that it was present at Rogue River at the time.

 

[Rramjet]

Others (your fellow bleevers) have stated that aliens are of ET origin. You are being hypocritical in stating that they are not. Correct your own hypocrisy before accusing me of it.

Of course I cannot expect subtly of argument in this forum. I have already stated on a number of occasions that other researchers (and for example KotA) do (does) not hold the same views as I do. There is nothing inconsistent with that and what I am arguing for. I am presenting the evidence to support my own opinions and conclusions on the UFO matter and not anyone elses.

I asked you on the other hand whether you believed in line with your fellow skeptics in this forum that anecdotal evidence should not be used to convict (in at least) a capital case. I stated that if you DO believe in line with your fellow skeptics in this forum then your last post on the issue (where you stated that such anecdotal evidence COULD be used to convict) was hypocritical. If you do NOT believe in line with your fellow skeptics then your argument is NOT hypocritical but you accept anecdotal evidence in court in capital cases. WHICH is it RoboTimbo?

 

[wollery]

IF we take the blimp hypothesis to be correct for a moment, then from the viewing angle of the observers (below and to the front) at Rogue River then the answer MUST be elliptical.

Evasion of the actual question noted.

The observers ALL described the object as “circular” (!), one even “like a coin”. The object maintained this aspect throughout – even when it turned away from the observers and moved off. This is ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT with the aspect a blimp would present to an observer if it performed such a manoeuvre as the witnesses described

Circular!!

That's funny, because the drawings that the two with binoculars made both show a cigar shaped object.

And yet they claim it was circular!

Curiouser and curiouser.

Most definitely!

Really? Just now you stated that they all claimed throughout that it was circular in shape, yet their own drawings show it to be cigar shaped? Are they incompetent as witnesses then?

No… we KNOW on the historical evidence that there were NO USN or USNR blimps operational on the West Coast at the time. However, we DO know Goodyear was operating ONE blimp within 200 miles - but there is NO evidence that it was present at Rogue River at the time.

There's also no evidence that it wasn't at Rogue river, and you are the one who claims that it's impossible for a blimp to have been there.

 

[Rramjet]

Evasion of the actual question noted.

Now isn't that just typical! I provide a precise and accurate answer to a question and because it is NOT the answer the questioner presupposed it should have been according to his peculiar belief system - he accuses me of "evasiveness". Bunk! A blimp MUST have been viewed as elliptical from the perspective of the observers. That is just the nature of the physical world we live in I am afraid.

That's funny, because the drawings that the two with binoculars made both show a cigar shaped object.

And yet they claim it was circular!

Curiouser and curiouser.

Really? Just now you stated that they all claimed throughout that it was circular in shape, yet their own drawings show it to be cigar shaped? Are they incompetent as witnesses then?

That is only because the drawing is necessarily two dimensional. If the witnesses got the chance to make a 3-D model it would have been circular precisely as they described!

This is also typical of the "debunker" mentality. They can only see the world through the distortion of their own belief system. That is - it WAS a blimp, therefore the drawings show an elliptical object. Perhaps it really is too much to ask a debunker to be a true skeptic and to apply truly scientific methodology and procedure to the examination of the evidence in UFO cases. They seem to be absolutely blind to anything other that what they believe in.

There's also no evidence that it wasn't at Rogue river, and you are the one who claims that it's impossible for a blimp to have been there.

The mere possibility of a blimp does not make a blimp reality. On the evidence a blimp at Rogue river at the precise time is highly unlikely... (not impossible and I have NEVER claimed impossible) ... Besides, the description of the eyewitnesses positively rules out "blimp" as the explanation. But of course let's not let the evidence stand in the way of a good story!

 

[Akhenaten]

Puddle Duck…? I assume maths is not your strong point… how did you get to be a pilot…?

Lets look at some basics:

<yes, let's>

Your arguments are going to look a little silly when Puddle Duck posts the actual Takeoff Charts as opposed to your Wikipedia reference, aren't they?


ETA: By way of a preview, they look like this:

 

[Belz...]

You are correct- it could happen that all ten witnesses get it all wrong, but it could also happen that after interviewing the ten witnesses a pattern begins to emerge.

I'd like to point out -- again -- that witnesses routinely (and unknowingly) adapt/retrofit their recollections as a group, especially when they have a chance to discuss the events together afterwards.

 

[Belz...]

IF we take the blimp hypothesis to be correct for a moment, then from the viewing angle of the observers (below and to the front) at Rogue River then the answer MUST be elliptical.

"What shape is a blimp when viewed face on? "

Circular!

So, basically what you're saying is that, if we say it was head-on, you say it was from the side, and if we say it was from the side, you say the opposite ?

How's your burden-of-proof research going ?

 

[Belz...]

Now isn't that just typical! I provide a precise and accurate answer to a question and because it is NOT the answer the questioner presupposed it should have been according to his peculiar belief system - he accuses me of "evasiveness".

Your answer didn't answer the question, Ramjet.

That is only because the drawing is necessarily two dimensional. If the witnesses got the chance to make a 3-D model it would have been circular precisely as they described!

You ARE aware, of course, that you can draw a circle on a 2-dimensional surface ?

 

[wollery]

Now isn't that just typical! I provide a precise and accurate answer to a question and because it is NOT the answer the questioner presupposed it should have been according to his peculiar belief system - he accuses me of "evasiveness". Bunk! A blimp MUST have been viewed as elliptical from the perspective of the observers. That is just the nature of the physical world we live in I am afraid.

No, you answered a question that wasn't asked, supplied your own interpretation of what the question should have been, and answered that instead.

How elliptical exactly would a typical blimp be from the distance and height that the observers describe it as having? And what if they are wrong about the height?

Oh, but of course, they're never wrong, are they.

That is only because the drawing is necessarily two dimensional. If the witnesses got the chance to make a 3-D model it would have been circular precisely as they described!

Ah, so by circular they mean, "circular from one perspective", which I presume was not the only perspective they saw, otherwise how would they know to draw it as a cigar shape? So when they say it was circular the whole time, are they lying? Or did it appear at some time during their observations to have a cigar shape?

This is also typical of the "debunker" mentality. They can only see the world through the distortion of their own belief system. That is - it WAS a blimp, therefore the drawings show an elliptical object.

I'd laugh, but this is just too sad to laugh at. I don't for a moment say it was a blimp, only that it is possible. You on the other hand distort the facts as far as possible (and sometimes further) to show that it couldn't possibly be a blimp. You state that the descriptions are consistently that the object was circular, and even argure that the drawings of cigar shaped objects are only so because of perspective. But we have to assume that the observers had that perspective, i.e. they at some point saw the object as cigar shaped.

So either they are lying, or misinterpreting their view, or they are mistaken.

Perhaps it really is too much to ask a debunker to be a true skeptic and to apply truly scientific methodology and procedure to the examination of the evidence in UFO cases. They seem to be absolutely blind to anything other that what they believe in.

The mere possibility of a blimp does not make a blimp reality.

I never said it does. But it makes the absolute discarding of the possibility a ridiculous position to take

On the evidence a blimp at Rogue river at the precise time is highly unlikely... (not impossible and I have NEVER claimed impossible)

And yet, you keep saying that we can discard the blimp hypothesis on the basis of the lack of probability of a blimp being there. So, ummm, no.

... Besides, the description of the eyewitnesses positively rules out "blimp" as the explanation. But of course let's not let the evidence stand in the way of a good story!

Now, that is just laughable.

Those infallible eyewitnesses who describe the object as circular and draw a cigar shape? Those witnesses?

 

[Belgian thought]

I shall change my Avatar to Ladyboy to help you understand the comment re some Thai women not being real if that helps.....

Here are sunset times from your own post:

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%

On the first night the sightings began about 6:45pm that is while it was still twilight. On the second night the sightings began at 6pm - that is at least a full half an hour BEFORE sunset… so in DAYLIGHT! The UFO could then be adequately seen and described (besides, it was also “self illuminating”).

So what is your point?

That it was not daylight.... er... that's it.

See sky pictures on the post I referred to please - 3067 - Thanks

Also, could you shed some light as to the weather conditions on the days of the sightings?

 

[Sledge]

Not exactly. I have consistently stated that UFOs (in and of themselves) are NOT evidence for alien intelligence. I have consistently stated that UFOs are proof of NOTHING except a lack of mundane explanation which in turn is SUGGESTIVE of a large gap in our knowledge of reality.

And you are already wrong. That we don't know what someone saw does not allow you to claim that it must by default have been something we can't explain. The only reason these cases remain inexplicable to you is your refusal to accept any mundane explanation.

Where the “alien” aspect comes into my argument it is with those cases that first STRONGLY indicate intelligent control (eg: the Tehran case) and then those cases where actual “beings” are apparent (the Father Gill case is a gentle step in that direction).

Cases where you have failed to offer evidence for either hypothesis.

I have stated from the outset that I am trying to build a coherent body of evidence that inexorably leads toward an “alien” conclusion. Beginning with “mere” UFOs and working through cases, each time “upping the ante” slightly. I believe this is a rational and coherent approach to the topic.

You believe wrongly. Adding supposition to speculation does not result in proof.

You may disagree with that approach

Me and everyone else it would seem. Including the scientific community. Is there a reason we should take your approach over one that produces verifiable, repeatable results?

and you may want to skip directly to the “end game” (probably evidence of “alien artifacts” or some other such “compelling” evidence) but I am determined to stick with my step-by-step approach.

That approach will lead you nowhere. You will never, by this technique, prove your assertions. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.

ETA:

I am relatively new here, but is there a pre-determined page limit on discussion I am unaware of?

If there is, let me know please.

Please tell us which of the cases discussed you feel has been dismissed out of hand, and what you think we should have addressed. Please don't follow Rramjet's example and think that asserting something repeatedly will magically make it true.

 

[GeeMack]

I followed Stray Cats' proficient arguments concerning photo evidence. The issue is that many photos have been heavily analyzed and proven to be legitimate.

How many photos have been "heavily analyzed and proven to be legitimate" photos of aliens and/or alien craft?

A simple question, SnidelyW, requiring a simple number as an answer. And if you don't know, you could have the balls to admit that you don't know. Or will you demonstrate once again that you'd rather remain ignorant?