UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

I see we're back to ranting with CAPITALS roger
Obssess much ?

 

[jhunter1163]

I'm a little curious if anyone noticed the 'registration' numbers myself.

I could point out someone who didn't notice the missile in his critique, but that would be cruel, so I won't.

Why, yes. Yes, I did.

 

[Toke]

OK, can't stand anymore. Gotta ask: was I the only one to notice the subtle irony of an AGM-45 pointing backwards?

I noticed the registration numbers and did not look too closely at the rest of the plane. On second look it does seem a bit mismatched.

 

[Akhenaten]

I noticed the registration numbers and did not look too closely at the rest of the plane. On second look it does seem a bit mismatched.

It's funny you should say that. After I removed the original (USAF) markings, I put the fake lettering on in the same style and it was so subtle that nobody would have noticed it, so I redid it in a more obvious style.

The point I found really amusing though was that Rramjet wanted people to refer to the photograph as evidence for fitment of a centre line fuel tank, but I actually drew most of that in myself after I reversed the missile, and it doesn't look at all real to anyone who's seen one.

PD will have a fit when he sees what I've done to his aircraft.

 

[Jocce]

I think you will find that there WAS more than one instance of triangulation (that we know about), but because there was also more than one UFO in the same region at the same time, the analysts decided that it was possible that in one of the reported instances, they could not be certain that the same UFO was sighted for triangulation purposes. Thus they only officially reported triangulation data for the instance where they could be certain the same UFO was sighted.

Excuse me, but the final report clearly says that NO reliable data was captured. Zip, zero, nil, as in nothing.

 

[Jocce]

So, where are we up to...

We have Rogue River where reliable witnesses described a UFO. And I claimed that as evidence that UFOs exist.

And yet it could have been a blimp.

To support that case (if people questioned "reliable")
We have the White Sands case, where a group of military experts set out to film and triangulate UFOs and they achieved their goal! I entered this case as further evidence that UFOs exist.

Unfortunately, they didn't get any reliable data.

Then I embarked upon the (perhaps more difficult task) of showing that not only did UFOs exist, but that "aliens" existed also. To do this I entered onto the record the Tehran case. Here we have expert military witnesses (including radar) describing an object performing extraordinary maneuvers

There is nothing extraordinary mentioned in the official report(s). Many things can fly and shine bright lights. And...where is this radar data you keep claiming exist?

seemingly under intelligent control. I entered this case because the "maneuvers" indicated something beyond human technological capacity AND given that fact, the intelligent control suggested "alien".

Are you claiming to know everything within human technological capacity? Wow...

I then entered the Father Gill case onto the record because it had actual "beings" observed and testified to. Here then is evidence for "aliens". Now we are still "stuck" in Tehran ...but I am sure Father Gill will get a run soon

I'm really looking forward to it...

 

[Jocce]

Patently UFOs exist. There are simply too many sightings to dismiss them out of hand.

Like bigfoot and homeopathically cured patients.

So what are we then to make of all these sightings?

Beat me but a wild guess...not much?

Certainly some will be misidentified mundane, natural or technological, events. However the largest truly scientific study of its kind - the Battelle Study (under the auspices of Project Blue Book) found at least 1 in 5 reported UFO sightings to be truly inexplicable in terms of any known mundane event (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

Like Rouge river, White Sands and Teheran you mean?

UFO debunkers claim that according to the probabilities, the chance that any single UFO sighting being a misinterpreted mundane event will be high. That may be so, but at the same time, the chances of any single event being truly inexplicable in terms of mundane events is significant.

Prove it then.

We must therefore examine individual cases to see if we can place them into either category. I have simply presented some cases that I contend fall into the "inexplicable in terms of mundane events" category.

And the consensus seems to be that you fail miserably.

The Rogue River incident for example. Here witnesses describe an object that IS truly inexplicable in terms of a mundane event. The UFO debunkers have "latched" onto "blimp" as an explanation , but the eyewitness descriptions of the object actually rule out a blimp (and remember, in that era, blimps were much more part of the public psyche and would have been instantly recognizable for what they were). Blimps do not fly at speeds of a jet plane. Blimps are noisy beasts, yet the UFO made no sound. Blimps are cigar shaped, yet the witnesses described a circular object (like a coin or pancake) and so on...all the witness descriptions positively rule out "blimp" as the explanation.

Wow, blinded by faith.

Because the eyewitness descriptions do not accord with descriptions of a blimp, the UFO debunkers are left with trying to impugn either the reliability of the witnesses or their powers of observation - to force a fit where none exists on the face of it. On the first point, the reliability of the witnesses is well established. They held responsible positions in a government military research establishment and never told their story to anyone outside their own security people - and all their character references stated that they were reliable, sober minded people.

And yet, they can be mistaken, sitting in a boat, using binoculars from the late 40's.

On the second point, their powers of observation is harder to asses. They had and used binoculars. It was a clear day and the sun was at their backs. There were five witnesses involved and they all described ostensibly the same thing. There were discrepancies in their stories, but the discrepancies were exactly where one would expect them to be, in the estimates of size and distance in a clear blue sky. It is extremely difficult to make a case that all five witnesses were somehow "deluded" or otherwise mistaken in their general observations, particularly in the shape of the object.

And the drawings show some very blimplike shapes.

What we are left with is a UFO. There is nothing else that we can conclude from the case. We certainly cannot conclude "aliens". Simply, the Rogue River incident was one of those "1 in 5" cases that are truly inexplicable in terms of a mundane event. In other words a UFO.

Exactly, they couldn't identify the object, probably for reasons I mentioned.

Then there was the White Sands case. Here a team of highly trained military observation and analytical experts set out to film and triangulate UFOs in an effort to discover what exactly it was that seemed to be overflying a supposedly secret military installation. In fact these experts managed to both film and triangulate the UFOs (more than one and on more than one occasion), but of course they could not explain exactly what it was they had filmed! There is no doubt they filmed something, but where the UFOs were located was inexplicable, high up on the edges of the atmosphere, and the military establishment were certain they had put nothing up there to explain the sightings ...so again UFOs, but this time there could be no question of manmade technological explanations and no question that the witnesses did not know how to observe and analyse those observations correctly. So another case of UFOs.

Yes, it was not identified. That doesn't exclude mundane explanations though.

Then there is the Tehran incident. Here a UFO (or UFOs) exhibited extraordinary abilities. Shape shifting, splitting apart and rejoining, "jumping" locations, outmaneuvering two F-4 fighters, chasing at least one F-4, able to interfere with the F-4s avionics (to name just some of the more startling characteristics) ... in doing all these things the UFO seemed to display intelligent control in that it was able to respond to and affect its environment in an intelligent fashion. Again the witnesses were highly trained personell (tower operators and fighter pilots). All that seemed to suggest that not only was a UFO involved, but that it was under intelligent control! That in turn raises the possibility of "aliens". For if it is not human technology (and its antics rule human technology out) and it was intelligently controlled, then what other explanation do we have apart from (almost by definition) "aliens"? Note we cannot claim "ET" because we have no idea of the nature of the "aliens" we are dealing with here.

And the sources are of dubious quality so I wouldn't rely to much on what they claim the UFO did.

All these cases together add up to some pretty compelling evidence that not only do UFOs exist, but "aliens" do also!

No it doesn't.

The astute reader will have noted by now that every time I mention "alien" I utilise quotation marks. This is because I want to distinguish "alien" from "ET". ET has the connotation of technological beings from other worlds and we simply do not know this to be the case. Of course the evidence strongly points in that direction, but as skeptics we must consider that we have no direct evidence for this. Other hypothetical scenarios are possible (local "aliens" for example, or inter/intra-dimensional beings to name just two other possibilities).

Or perfectly mundane things that for various reasons could not be identified as such.

Of course I have more cases and evidence to present. But my approach has been a step-by-step one, each case building on the next, allowing time for discussion of each as we go. Currently the Tehran case is being "discussed...

Oh the joy! It's like xmas comming 2 days early.

(although I note that there no longer seems to be much argument about the actual evidence

Yes, you tend to ignire any evidence that goes against your beliefs.

-but all things concerning the case must be discussed, it shows that people are at least thinking about the case - even if it IS only from the perspective of trying to support their own beliefs and not a from a truly skeptical scientific position, but my sincere hope is that as each case is discussed, it may slowly dawn on the UFO debunkers that their position actually NEEDS to become skeptical and scientific, rather that merely argumentative and based on unfounded belief systems. And above all it must become a rational debate, rather than some of the logical falaciousness that has so far been forthcoming)

The only one NOT sceptical here is you.

 

[Rramjet]

Your constantly repeating the Battelle study is just ignoring some of the items mentioned by those that wrote the report.

That’s a plain ignorant statement from you Astrophotographer and it totally misrepresents my stated position on the subject. I reference the Battelle Study and anyone who cares to can go and read it for themselves. Any one who cares to can cite sections of it if they want in any way they reasonably care to and for any point or reason they can reasonably justify. The study is in the public domain. I merely point out that whatever else might have been said or done, a primary finding of the study was that at least 1 in 5 UFO reports examined (over 3000 of them) turned out to be inexplicable in terms of mundane events.

You also refuse to acknowledge any studies made by others over the decades, which ended up with the same conclusion that was mentioned in the Battelle study.

Again this is an ignorant statement. In fact in this thread (and others) I have often (for example) referred to the Condon report (a source you hold up as a veritable bible on UFO debunking and a reason why the study of UFOs is useless) as another good source of information about UFOs. Indeed in my OP I referenced a number of reports (you seem to refer to) concerning UFOs whose summary conclusions do NOT support my contentions. Yet I placed those reports on the record at the very beginning of my OP so that everyone could have easy access to them. So your statement is not only hypocritical, it is an outright lie.

There was nothing in these reports to revise current scientific understanding or that there was evidence of any alien spaceships.

Again this is a totally ignorant statement. In the Condon Report for example you will also find cases where the conclusion was reached that they were not explicable in terms of mundane events… (for example Case 2 – Lakenheath, England, 13-14th August 1956: “In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high” or Case 21 – Colorado Springs, Colorado, 13th May 1967: “This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record, and no conclusion is possible at this time” or Case 46 – McMinnville, Oregon 11th May 1950: This is one of the few UFO reports in whicvh all factors investigated – geometric, psychological, and physical – appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flyinbg object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses”) …but of course UFO debunkers have never read the actual report! Instead they rely on Condon’s summary, which is totally at odds with what was concluded in the body of the report itself! In fact out of the 63 cases investigated in the Condon Report 29% or them remain unexplained to this day! That is almost 1 in 3 Astrophotographer! Which is a higher incidence of unexplained cases that even the Battelle study! Perhaps I should begin referencing Condon instead of the Battelle study!

As for your presentation, I can only conclude that you have no idea how to study UFOs and prefer to attempt to rely on studies that have failed to demonstrate anything meaningful. Good for you.

Your merely stating so does NOT make it true. You are resorting to presenting opinion as fact. That is neither sceptical nor scientific.

I think it is up to those that feel there is something to study to demonstrate there is something that can be studied scientifically.

Yes and that would be that from 1 in 5 (Battelle) to 1 in 3 (Condon) UFO cases are inexplicable in terms of mundane events! PLUS I have already outlined HOW the study of UFOs might progress in my last reply to you! How can you not have seen it? Are you blind? An idiot? Just plain stupid? What other conclusions can I draw from the fact that I outlined a direct answer to you on that very question in my previous reply to YOU and you fail to acknowledge it?

Repeating the failed methodologies of the past just end up in the same way.

So Condon (Sturrock, etc) is (are) now a “methodological failure”? Can you repeat that …just for clarification purposes mind. I just want to make sure you actually mean what you say… but of course you don’t. You have abandoned ALL principle (logical or scientific) and will say ANYTHING, as long as it seems to support your contention of the precise moment and state absolutely contradictory remarks at a later date to support the contention of THAT moment. You’re an utterly, contemptible hypocrite. And for further evidence of that one need look no further than your comments on Sturrock below!

It is interesting that the Teheran case, the Rogue River case, and the Father Gill case failed to make the grade as evidence to present to the Sturrock panel in 1997. I guess those scientists felt they were not as good as you do.

Sturrock? That the panel failed to study such good UFO cases is perhaps an indictment on the panel rather than me!

You have consistently rejected the case histories that demonstrate the problems with eyewitness testimony and the issues of misperception.

Where? Which ones? I would call you a liar, but I do not wish to stoop as low as (for example GeeMack).

You have presented a dismissive attitude towards any possibility presented other than alien visitation for the source of these reports.

Oh you are really a nasty piece of work AstroP. This is an utterly false statement! For example for Rogue River I have specifically ruled out MANY times that we can conclude anything other than “UFO” for that case and have SPECIFICALLY stated on MANY occasions that we CANNOT and MUST not conclude aliens. Similarly the White Sands case.

That is as closed a mind as one can have. Of course, that is what you probably learned when you got your degree in pseudoscience.

I have clearly demonstrated that you are a hypocritical liar… (there I’ve said it) you and others merely contend the same for me but have utterly failed to produce any evidence of such. I HAVE presented the evidence that clearly demonstrates you to be a hypocritical liar, while you and you fellow travellers in this thread utterly fail to do so for me. What does THAT tell you?

 

[Toke]

Rramjet,
There is no benefit for you in getting rude just because nobody fall for your hand waving lack of evidence.

 

[Toke]

PD will have a fit when he sees what I've done to his aircraft.

Do you think he will recognize it as his?

 

[Belz...]

Istated:
I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

Which is WRONG, Ramjet. Get that through your thick skull, PLEASE. We ARE NOT CLAIMINg that it's mundane. WE ARE SAYING that until a better explanation is provided, we must ASSUME that it is mundane because mundane explanations are the only ones we KNOW exist.

Sheesh.

This does NOT answer my question!

Yes it does. The fact that you either disagree with it or don't understand it has no bearing on that.

More… in all the cases I have presented you do NOT know what the object was! So how CAN you claim “your” explanation to be “known”? Rubbish!

HOW do you know the probability of “aliens” existing?

How do you know the probability of invisible leprechauns existing ?

IF you CANNOT do that (and obviously you cannot) then I a m free to hypothesise explanations that FIT the evidence.

And eyewitness error doesn't fit the evidence ?

Garbage! You are claiming a “mundane” explanation. THAT IS a claim!

No, it isn't. It's called the "null hypothesis".

By the SAME logic you have NOT ruled out “alien” as the explanation.

Irrelevant. As I said it's the extraordinary claim that defies the laws of physics and hasn't been demonstrated. So we're still waiting for evidence.

No, you simply need to provide evidence that a blimp was at Rogue River at the time. You have NOT done that. MORE, the eyewitness testimony describes an object that does NOT have the characteristics of a blimp. So, “blimp” is an entirely unreasonable explanation. What else you got?

You simply either DON'T understand or REFUSE to understand what I said. Willful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance and there's nothing I can do for you until you get rid of that.

The ONLY claim I have ever made about Rogue River is that there is NO reasonable mundane explanation to be found

And yet there are. You simply don't like them because they're less interesting to you. Blimps are boring, after all.

I claim “alien” you ask me for evidence.
You claim a mundane object, I ask YOU for evidence.

We don't claim it. That's your fundamental mistake. It's not my problem if you don't understand anything about science and skepticism.

Simple. Logical. Straightforward. Your obtuseness in the matter knows no bounds.

Whatever helps you sleep.

Why not? Both claims have equal a priori weight.

Evil extradimentional beings visiting me in my sleep is equivalent to eyewitness error ????

But if a blimp is not a reasonable explanation (that is it does NOT fit the evidence), and you cannot find ANY other “mundane” explanation, then I am free to hypothesise what I like about the case!

Maybe it was a BIG Leprechaun.

If you propose “blimp” then you must provide evidence for a blimp. Simple. Logical. Straightforward.

And wrong.

No, you have NOT explained what is wrong with my conception. You have danced around the point and have never directly addressed it. WHY do you feel you don’t have to provide evidence for your claims?

I've provided ELEVEN references to me doing just that. Your contention that I have not done so is a blantant lie.

 

[Belgian thought]

You know what strikes me about the Tehran case? The UFO in question outflew a couple of F4s, possibly fired a missile at them, and most tellingly of all, used Russian radar. I think we know what it was:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/firefox2.jpg

With that mystery solved, perhaps Rramjet could present us with some of his long-awaited evidence of aliens?

Indeed Russian planes - possibly in retaliation for operation DARK GENE

"The story of RF-4Es in Iranian service is probably one of the most secret chapters in the history of the Phantom II. As it seems at one point in the early 1970s the USAF loaned two RF-4Cs to Iran. Actually, the aircraft - known to have been 69-0369 and 69-0370 - were used for "top secret" reconnaissance flights behind the Soviet borders, in a joint US-Iranian operation. It is known that these two Phantoms passed through US European bases underway to Iran on 8 August 1970. ....

List of planes supplied

... It must be mentioned, however, that these were certainly not all the RF-4Es delivered to Iran. Very early in the 1970s the USAF started supplying additional examples, so-called "Unknown-Iranians" (or "UKIs"), full of exotic equipment and therefore sometimes nick-named "Dark Genes". The main purpose of the UKIs was to replace losses that eventually occurred during reconnaissance missions deep into the USSR. It is believed that Iran received between six and 12 of such airframes".

Source: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_366.shtml

The UFO plot thinnens - to Homeopathic proportions

 

[wollery]

Where? Which ones? I would call you a liar, but I do not wish to stoop as low as (for example GeeMack).

Campeche.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” We have Rogue River where reliable witnesses described a UFO. And I claimed that as evidence that UFOs exist.”

And yet it could have been a blimp.

Yes and blimps fly at the speed of jet planes, make no sound and are circular (like a coin or pancake)!

I stated:
” We have the White Sands case, where a group of military experts set out to film and triangulate UFOs and they achieved their goal! I entered this case as further evidence that UFOs exist.”

Unfortunately, they didn't get any reliable data.

Yeah, filming and triangulating UFOs is not reliable data! Sure kid, sure!

I stated:
“…I entered onto the record the Tehran case. Here we have expert military witnesses (including radar) describing an object performing extraordinary manoeuvres…”

There is nothing extraordinary mentioned in the official report(s). Many things can fly and shine bright lights. And...where is this radar data you keep claiming exist?

I presume by “official reports” you mean Mooy’s Memorandum for the Record, McKenzie’s Routing Slip and Evamn’s analysis for the DIA…?

Let’s look at what Evans wrote:

“An outstanding report: this case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of UFO phenomena
The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrebad and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground)
The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews and experienced tower operators)
Visual sightings were confirmed by radar
Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft [Note: this refers to the electomagnetic interference reported by the jets and the commercial airliner]
There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object)
An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs”

As for McKenzie and Mooy… perhaps you should (at this time) READ the reports, and I exhort you to do so now because in making such a statement you plainly have not read these sources’ reports. In there you will find many “extraordinary features of the event and the UFO and ALSO reference to the radar “data”. PLEASE read the reports, otherwise your ignorance will keep showing.

I stated:

“…seemingly under intelligent control. I entered this case because the "maneuvers" indicated something beyond human technological capacity AND given that fact, the intelligent control suggested "alien".

Are you claiming to know everything within human technological capacity? Wow...

I know that we are simply NOT capable of conducting such manoeuvres as the UFO demonstrated… and if I am wrong…then THAT is an utterly sensational story worth investigating in its own right!

Like bigfoot and homeopathically cured patients.

Well we KNOW how homeopathic “cures” work…so NO mystery there! As for “bigfoot”, I contend that we CANNOT dismiss the sightings “out-or hand” either. Something IS going on there that IS worthy of scientific exploration… As I know absolutely NOTHING about “bigfoot” except that there seem to exist credible sightings, then my position would be that scientific investigation IS warranted. If it turns out that “bigfoot” is a figment of imagination, then THAT is an answer WORTH having, because it will tell us MANY things about the human psyche. If some other conclusion is reached, then that ALSO will be of value. Either way, valuable information is to be gained.

Beat me but a wild guess...not much?

You say so but that does NOT make it true!

I stated:
” Certainly some will be misidentified mundane, natural or technological, events. However the largest truly scientific study of its kind - the Battelle Study (under the auspices of Project Blue Book) found at least 1 in 5 reported UFO sightings to be truly inexplicable in terms of any known mundane event (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

Like Rouge river, White Sands and Teheran you mean?

(Rogue River) and yes, precisely.

I stated:
” UFO debunkers claim that according to the probabilities, the chance that any single UFO sighting being a misinterpreted mundane event will be high. That may be so, but at the same time, the chances of any single event being truly inexplicable in terms of mundane events is significant.”

Prove it then.

Battelle Study (1 in 5 were UFOs) Condon Study (1 in 3 were UFOs).

I stated:
” We must therefore examine individual cases to see if we can place them into either category. I have simply presented some cases that I contend fall into the "inexplicable in terms of mundane events" category.”

And the consensus seems to be that you fail miserably.

You say so but that does NOT make it so.

Wow, blinded by faith.

A blimp can move at the speed of a jet while making no sound and presenting as circular like a coin? In your world maybe, but NOT in the real world I am afraid.

And yet, they can be mistaken, sitting in a boat, using binoculars from the late 40's.

Binoculars from the late 40s? No they could not make precision lenses “in them days”! Foolish boy! And observations from a boat? Perhaps that is why they fall out of the sky all the time, they keep running into each other. Absurd!

And the drawings show some very blimplike shapes.

That is because you do not understand the principles of perspective when representing three dimensional objects on a two-dimensional plane. It has been described for you but you are perhaps not bright enough to have understood those explanations?

Exactly, they couldn't identify the object, probably for reasons I mentioned.

What reasons? That manufacturers could not make precision lenses in the late 40’s? It is impossible to accurately observe from a boat? That you do not understand perspective an drawings? Yep, throw the whole case out!

In reference to White Sands

Yes, it was not identified. That doesn't exclude mundane explanations though.

If you had read the case reports you would understand WHY mundane explanations ARE excluded. I WISH people would READ the information about the cases before making statements that clearly contradict the evidence in the cases. If they do not, it only makes them look foolish when I point out their errors.

I reference to the Tehran case

And the sources are of dubious quality so I wouldn't rely to much on what they claim the UFO did.

Your merely making the unfounded assertion does NOT make it true!

…and this can be said of all further comments you make in this post. Unfounded assertions, made in ignorance of the facts of the cases presented, do NOT make sound, logical, or sceptical argument. But if THAT is what you want to base you belief systems on, then go right ahead. I am afraid I will not be able to help you in the matter.

 

[Correa Neto]

It's funny you should say that. After I removed the original (USAF) markings, I put the fake lettering on in the same style and it was so subtle that nobody would have noticed it, so I redid it in a more obvious style.

The point I found really amusing though was that Rramjet wanted people to refer to the photograph as evidence for fitment of a centre line fuel tank, but I actually drew most of that in myself after I reversed the missile, and it doesn't look at all real to anyone who's seen one.

PD will have a fit when he sees what I've done to his aircraft.

I noticed the missile when looking for the second time... Too busy laughing from the register...

I doubt Rramjet will ever understand the subtle joke of the missile joke and his babble about radars.

If Rramjet is actually a scientist, I am an Atlantean vimana pilot and pity his workplace.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet,
There is no benefit for you in getting rude just because nobody fall for your hand waving lack of evidence.

Yeah, and I just sit back and cop all the abuse I do without occasionally biting back. Ha! At least I provide evidence that Astrophotographer is a hypocritical liar. No-one has provided any such evidence for calling me similar things. From me it is then a proven fact, from the likes of GeeMack it is literal abuse. See the difference? Pure and simple.

And YOU are a hypocrite for NOT calling your fellow travelers out on the very same thing!

 

[Toke]

I think I can live with your low opinion of me.

 

[wollery]

I stated:
” We have the White Sands case, where a group of military experts set out to film and triangulate UFOs and they achieved their goal! I entered this case as further evidence that UFOs exist.”

Yeah, filming and triangulating UFOs is not reliable data! Sure kid, sure!

I notice you ignored my post about the White sands case.

Why is that?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Rramjet tell us how many pages you will try to sell the same old bunch of garbage as evidence until you realize that you will nobody convert to your believe system?

 

[Jocce]

Yes and blimps fly at the speed of jet planes, make no sound and are circular (like a coin or pancake)!

If you can't judge distance, then speed is pretty much hopeless to judge. Do you hear a lot of things so far away? They interpreted what they saw as circular seen from an angle. That doesn't make it circular. The pictures drawn show clearly blimplike shapes.

Yeah, filming and triangulating UFOs is not reliable data! Sure kid, sure!

First of all, thanks for the compliment. Although I could easily pass for 40 it's not everyday I get called "kid". As for data - filming is a film of something and triangulation didn't yield any reliable data. Read the final report.

I stated:
“…I entered onto the record the Tehran case. Here we have expert military witnesses (including radar) describing an object performing extraordinary manoeuvres…”

I presume by “official reports” you mean Mooy’s Memorandum for the Record, McKenzie’s Routing Slip and Evamn’s analysis for the DIA…?

Let’s look at what Evans wrote:

“An outstanding report: this case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of UFO phenomena
The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrebad and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground)
The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews and experienced tower operators)
Visual sightings were confirmed by radar
Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft [Note: this refers to the electomagnetic interference reported by the jets and the commercial airliner]
There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object)
An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs”

I don't see any description of extraordinary maneuvers in those selected quotes. Also, radar data is still lacking.

As for McKenzie and Mooy… perhaps you should (at this time) READ the reports, and I exhort you to do so now because in making such a statement you plainly have not read these sources’ reports. In there you will find many “extraordinary features of the event and the UFO and ALSO reference to the radar “data”. PLEASE read the reports, otherwise your ignorance will keep showing.

I have read the reports already. I didn't come to the same conclusion you did. Deal with it.

I stated:

“…seemingly under intelligent control. I entered this case because the "maneuvers" indicated something beyond human technological capacity AND given that fact, the intelligent control suggested "alien".

I know that we are simply NOT capable of conducting such manoeuvres as the UFO demonstrated… and if I am wrong…then THAT is an utterly sensational story worth investigating in its own right!

I repeat. People can (and could then also) fly and shine bright lights. That's what's reported.

Binoculars from the late 40s? No they could not make precision lenses “in them days”! Foolish boy! And observations from a boat? Perhaps that is why they fall out of the sky all the time, they keep running into each other. Absurd!

Are you delirious? These sentences aren't even coherent. Rephrase please.

That is because you do not understand the principles of perspective when representing three dimensional objects on a two-dimensional plane. It has been described for you but you are perhaps not bright enough to have understood those explanations?

Or, maybe they saw a blimp and mistakenly interpreted it as a circular thing seen from an angle...hmm...

What reasons? That manufacturers could not make precision lenses in the late 40’s? It is impossible to accurately observe from a boat?

Yes, I'm glad you finally understand.