UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Alley Cat]

Nearly everyone has been doing this since page one of this thread.


You have not been doing this.

Agreed

 

[W.D.Clinger]

UFO reports continue unabated. And people like me will continue to argue that UFOs must be taken seriously by the scientific community.

Agreed.

I have not stated that I am NOT going to present evidence for "aliens".

Thank you for clearing that up. It's refreshing to see you make a positive claim.

Indeed I have already presented The Father Gill, the Lonnie Zamora and the Travis Walton cases which point in that direction.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how those cases support your claim that you have not stated you are not going to present evidence for "aliens".

If you don't find that sort of evidence at least interesting or intriguing then I am sorry - perhaps this is just not the thread for you.

We've seen plenty of "interesting" and "intriguing" evidence in this thread. Are you suggesting that the compelling or convincing evidence has been banished to some other thread?

So I will continue to put forward the evidence and the research to support my contentions and I will argue, forcefully if need be, to support my case concerning UFOs.

To "continue", you'll have to start. To argue your case, forcefully or otherwise, you'll have to state your case.

I am sorry if that upsets you, but unfortunately that cannot be a factor in preventing the evidence, the research and the arguments from being placed on the record in this forum.

Okay, I'll bite: What factors have prevented you from placing the evidence, research, and arguments on the record in this forum?

 

[Akhenaten]

The above link points to a short article (less that 300 words) in the Register-Guard, (Ore Wed, Jan, 3, 1979) titled “UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says”

<snip>

Yeah, I know what it says. I posted it. With a link for anyone who felt like following it up.

Common courtesy, sadly uncommon.

 

[Akhenaten]

You… ughhh… how … now you almost leave me speechless.

When he finally succeeds, everyone in the thread will buy him a virtual beer.

Score!

 

[Stray Cat]

In order to investigate the possibility that atmospheric anomalies could explain the DST, I contacted David Atlas (1980), an expert in atmospheric effects on radar. He pointed out that typical "dot angels", i.e., echoes from birds, insects and clear air turbulence (CAT), probably could be detected by the Wellington radar, but he doubted that these could be detected at a distance as great as 80 nm. When told of the DST his immediate response was, "UFO."

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Do you simply dismiss that? If so, on what grounds?

Lack of credibility, Rramjet.

You did it to yourself, and now your arguments are worthless.

Go figure.

 

[Stray Cat]

Because the squid boats WERE identified for what they were.

Indeed... but if a light from some boats can be seen for 120 miles, how would anyone looking at a single light point against a black sky be able to tell if the light was 2 miles away or 120 miles away?

There were also a number of occasions when the WATCC reported a radar contact at a specific position and the pilots noted a visual confirmation of a target at that position.

If the radar returned a blip at 2 miles East and the pilot looked and saw a light East, how does he know if the light is 2 miles away and not 120 miles away?

I think the "confirmation bias" is actually working against YOU here. A "hit" is a "hit". It is positive confirmation that an object exists at the point the radar indicated it should. Whatever else might be occurring, you cannot deny this point. We also have at least one confirmed radar/visual/film concurrence in this case. Do you simply dismiss that? If so, on what grounds?

On the grounds I've explained above.
And we've yet to hear from you about the number of 'misses' because you haven't provided a figure.... go figure.

 

[GeeMack]

There is no way to demonstrate that a disk-shaped object was not either tossed in the air and photographed, or suspended from wires and swung out before being photographed.

There is also no way to demonstrate that it wasn't an illusion created by a god to cause some mentally ill high school kid sixty years in the future to make a complete ass of himself on an Internet discussion forum. Yet we have several pieces of evidence to suggest this might be true. Certainly as much as we have evidence to suggest it was aliens.

Care to address that possibility, Rramjet? Or will you choose to remain ignorant?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Then it was a case of the WATCC contacting the plane and the pilots confirming or not whether they had a visual at the WATCC’s cited location. THAT IS confirmatory evidence!

Wrong. Seeing a light in the same general direction as a radar contact that "pops up" and then disappears is not confirmatory evidence. You really have let your scientific standards slip haven't you?

 

[Astrophotographer]

perhaps if you had actually READ Dr Maccabee’s radar report you would have the information you need to make an informed comment next time.

I have read his report and I don't see anyplace where such a track of a radar contact exists. Perhaps you can show me where he describes a radar contact entering the scope display from the edge, approach the plane, and then exit the scope display the way a real radar target would appear. Until you do, then we can safely state that the contacts were random in nature that would disappear and reappear at various places. This is EXACTLY what Startup described in the interview he did on NOVA. He stated they did two orbits to locate a radar contact and not once did they see anything in those orbits.This is EXACTLY the kind of behavior one would expect from contacts produced by AP conditions.

 

[Access Denied]

At the very least Dr Maccabee is a peer-reviewed, published author in mainstream scientific journals. He has a string of qualifications and has successfully made a career in hard science. Can you say the same? Envy does not become you Access Denied.

You’re joking right? For the purposes of our discussions here Maccabee is a professional UFOlogist… selling his own special brand of pseudoscience to the incredulous for profit.

Actually, I am proud to have my name associated with Dr Maccabee's (even if it IS only in this forum).

Not all UFOlogists would be so quick to associate themselves with “SEA GULL”…

The Fund for CIA Research?
or
Who's Disinforming Whom?
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/cia.research

“Dr. Maccabee published a paper titled 'UFO Landings Near Kirtland AFB or Welcome to the Cosmic Watergate' in 1985. The report was co-authored by Bill Moore and printed on FUFOR stationary. The report is an investigation into the alledged incident described in the Kirtland Landing Document dated Sept. 9, 1980 released by HQ/AFOSI. A careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the document (and Maccabee's _own report_) clearly shows that the document is a fraud created by Doty. Dr. Maccabee's apparent support for the Kirtland document lent credence to Doty and his fraudulent claims at a critical time. If Dr. Maccabee had exposed Doty at this point a great deal of time and effort could have been saved by researchers. Dr. Maccabee now privately admits that the whole MJ-12 mess is probably a hoax. He justifies his position of providing support for the MJ-12 investigation by maintaining that there is a secret control group, a MJ-12 "by any name" as he puts it. Apparently the details aren't important. When did Maccabee know the MJ-12 material was fraudulent, was it before he provided Stan Friedman with $16,000 of Fund money?”​

I have more, lots more in fact… shall I continue?

And HOW do YOU know UFOs are NOT a "threat to national security".

A little birdie told me?

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=188

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;

There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

If you can’t trust the U.S. Air Force who can you trust?

 

[GeeMack]

You’re joking right? For the purposes of our discussions here Maccabee is a professional UFOlogist… selling his own special brand of pseudoscience to the incredulous [...]

And one guy in this thread is buying it, hook, line, and sinker.

​

 

[Astrophotographer]

YOU “chastised” ME for not having read Ireland’s paper. Then in reference to that SAME paper you indicated that you ALSO had not read it. I was merely pointing out that it was hypocritical of you to call me out for not having read something when CLEARLY you had not read it either!

I am not the one claiming to have researched the subject. You are. It is your case and it is limited to one source, which is a very closed minded approach.

I decided that given Dr Maccabees extensive refutation of that article and my current financial situation, I simply could not afford it. If however YOU can afford it, WHY have YOU not purchased it?

That's right. You are a pauper scientist. I guess desiring a second opinion on the matter is just completely out of the question for your highly developed scientific mind. Yes, I did purchase the article in question. I don't see how Dr. M. actually refuted the paper by two accomplished scientists. Perhaps Maccabee, like you, desires to declare victory so everybody paying attention to him believes it.

Besides I have already explained that just because the pilots could not see the UFO at a particular time, does NOT mean it was not there. Given that when it WAS observed, it was blinking on and off, it could easily have gone “off” and not been seen, just as sometimes it was “on” and WAS seen.

The flashing UFO was a rapid flashing in the film. I doubt the pilots would miss it. However, you are now trying to make it appear that the UFOs were actually invisible! Amazing stuff these UFOs. They behave like ghosts or phantoms (or gods?). They appear as lights and AP and then disappear when you want to get a close look at them. Keep digging that hole. It will bury you.

…but when those radar returns have visual confirmation…which they DID and were filmed… what then Astrophotographer? What then?

Absolutely prove that these radar contacts and lights were one in the same. You have not done that.

…Perhaps I overstated the case in the heat of the moment. There were NO boats identified in the area.

Actually there were. In Dr. Ireland's article he mentions that several squid boats were in the area:

While the main fleet of thirty boats was fishing 250 km from the incident, records show that at least twenty boats were in transit between fishing grounds that night, and a few others were known to be fishing singly.

(Ireland and Andrews Applied optics 1 December 1979 p. 3890)

Klass also mentions that a squid boat had departed Wellington on December 16th with its destination as Pegasus Bay near Christchurch! (Klass p.242)

…I have qualified my statement with an explanation that while it was not possible to directly link the radar targets with the visual sightings, the fact that the visual sightings occurred in the same area as the radar targets and at the same time is at least suggestive of a likely conjunction.

Iniitally, you acted as if these radar-visual contacts were rock solid. Now it is not so solid. So basically we are discussing some random radar contacts and possible links to visual light observations. The case gets weaker by the moment.

We have at least ONE solid visual/radar/film conjunction (most probably two). We have at least five radar visuals.

And which one of the hundreds of such contacts are we discussing. Now you seem confused. Is it one, two, five, hundreds? Focus please so we can actually get to the meat and potatoes/cut to the chase. Which contact was the best one?

When you have visual confirmation of a radar target, then that is evidence that the target is REAL. Something IS there at the location. THAT is something that cannot be disputed in this case, no matter how much you try to twist and turn and misdirect the argument.

But just because you see a light in the same direction as a radar contact does not mean they are one in the same. I previously described how a fighter pilot chased a radar contact that he had a visual on. The visual eventually turned out to be a star.

The WATCC would report a radar contact, and the pilots would THEN confirm or not a visual contact. It was NOT (as you state in clear misdirection) the other way round!

Really? According to Klass, we have the following conversation:

Startup: Do you have any targets on the Kaikoura Peninsula range?

ATC: There are targets in your one O'clock position (roughly 30 degrees to the right of dead-ahead of the aircraft) at, uh, thirteen miles....appearing and then disappearing. At the present moment they are not showing...but were showing about one minute ago. (Klass 235)

It certainly sounds like the pilot is requesting confirmation of his visuals.

I have told you, there IS no “best case”. There is merely evidence and research. I consider this case a very good one to support my contentions about UFOs. You obviously have a different opinion and that is why we are arguing the merits of it. IF you CAN convince me that the case is not a good one – by presenting EVIDENCE to support you assertions - then I will change my mind, but so far, you have presented nothing that cannot be easily countered or shown to be implausible or false.

It appears to be research based on only one source, which is not much research at all is it? Saying there is no best case indicates you are trying to multiply bad or weak cases and hope they amount to something. I don't need to convince you. However, I can point out problems with your reasoning and your research methods. You have closed your mind to only one possibility. Congratuations. You are now a true bonafide UFOlogist.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It seems Dr Maccabee was taking advice on his radar analysis from David Atlas.

I am famiiliar with Dr. Atlas and his brief letter in UFOs: a scientific debate (he could not be present for the event). I don't see how he refutes the idea that AP was the casuse of many of the contacts that night. In the book "UFOs: A scientific debate", he stated the following:

..In view of the previously demonstrated facts that these layers both scatter and (specularly) reflect radio waves in the forward direction, there is now abudant evidence that the atmosphere will affect radio propagation in almost unbelievable ways and produce virtual targets which have apparently fantastic maneuverability. (p.189)

Maccabee did not have Atlas look at the data that Dr. Ireland had in his possession. I think Dr. Atlas would have responded differently if he had. His comments above indicate the atmosphere is often the cause for these spurious types of radar contacts. Demonstrate that the atmosphere can not possibly produce these contacts. It is up to you to falsify the AP explanation for the contacts. Until that happens, it is more likely the contacts were produced by AP.

Ooo… you really know how to attempt misdirection. RADAR/VISUAL/FILM CONJUNCTION Astrophotogrpaher. THAT is what we HAVE in this case. No matter HOW had you try, THOSE facts will stand.

So we are back to the radar-visuals being confirmed as rock solid again. I thought you stated that the contacts were possibly the same.
I have qualified my statement with an explanation that while it was not possible to directly link the radar targets with the visual sightings, the fact that the visual sightings occurred in the same area as the radar targets and at the same time is at least suggestive of a likely conjunction.

Did you change your opinion again? Establish these confirmations as FACT (that which can not be refuted). Until you do so, it is your belief that they are one in the same.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If the radar returned a blip at 2 miles East and the pilot looked and saw a light East, how does he know if the light is 2 miles away and not 120 miles away?

He can't. This is where the problem with "radar-visual" confirmations occur. UFOlogists want everyone to believe that the light and radar contact are one in the same. However, that can not be proven and is only suggested. There are cases I presented previously of pilots chasing stars that were supposedly radar contacts. There was one case (37) in the Condon study, where a radar return was linked to the planet Venus. It was later determined by Dr. Craig and the team that the contact reported was weak. This is another case where a visual UFO is checked to see if there is a radar contact in the area. Sure enough a weak contact is reported as a "tie-up" with the visual. The reverse can also happen. A radar operator can report a contact in one location and the observer may look to see a strange light in the area. Had the radar operator said nothing, the person probably would have written off the light as just a star, a plane, a satellite, a ship, a building, or anything else that would normally be there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I consider this case a very good one to support my contentions about UFOs.

What particular thing are you contending UFOs are?

 

[Akhenaten]

And one guy in this thread is buying it, hook, line, and sinker.

​

That's indeed hilarious, but what I'm really waiting for is some n00b to come along and attack Father GeeMack for his strange views about gods and such.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's indeed hilarious, but what I'm really waiting for is some n00b to come along and attack Father GeeMack for his strange views about gods and such.

How about we start attacking him and see who jumps on the bandwagon? It's getting boring reading Rramjet's stuff.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Ireland searched NZ govt. records and turned up NO evidence of a squid fleet in the area. Squid boats never fish alone (usually they “pair off”) so the single light UFOs are inexplicable under the SB hypothesis.

This is a false statement probably based on being force fed Dr. M's one-sided opinon:

While the main fleet of thirty boats was fishing 250 km from the incident, records show that at least twenty boats were in transit between fishing grounds that night, and a few others were known to be fishing singly.

(Ireland and Andrews Applied optics 1 December 1979 p. 3890)

Ireland and Andrews footnote this comment with the following:

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries; personal communication (p. 3890)

Are you stating that Ireland and Andrews lied to a scientific journal?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...the ratio between confirmed and unconfirmed would be what? One number will do, or a simple "I don't know".

Careful - the last time you asked a question with a one word answer, Rr replied with three thousand, one hundred and eighty eight. (post #5544, and no, I didn't count them. OpenOffice did.)