UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[realpaladin]

I'd love a cup, thank you. English Breakfast, honey, touch of cream.

Sausage, bacon, cream, extra T with the but putty....


Dude! That's just plain sick man!

 

[Marduk]

Feb. 25, 1942. A UFO was tracked and shot at for about 30 mins. during WWII

no it wasn't
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171#
have you been smoking meth again

 

[realpaladin]

Feb. 25, 1942. A UFO was tracked and shot at for about 30 mins. during WWII

Lousy shots.... missing it for 30 minutes.

 

[Sledge]

I hope it was reported in that paragon of peer-reviewed journalism, Playboy. Otherwise we're just not going to be interested.

 

[Stray Cat]

Lousy shots.... missing it for 30 minutes.

Yes but have you seen the speed those things travel?...


errrr.... unless it's one of those that goes really slowly of course... luckily the one over LA was fast enough to not get hit, but slow enough to take 30 minutes to fly away.

 

[Marduk]

Feb. 25, 1942. A UFO was tracked and shot at for about 30 mins. during WWII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

instead of posting links, perhaps it might help if you actually read them

besides, this has already been discusssed in this thread starting on page 121
it ended on page 122 when Rroger started barking at the moon again

 

[Astrophotographer]

Feb. 25, 1942. A UFO was tracked and shot at for about 30 mins. during WWII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

Discussed to death about 20 or 30 pages ago.

 

[realpaladin]

Yes but have you seen the speed those things travel?...


errrr.... unless it's one of those that goes really slowly of course... luckily the one over LA was fast enough to not get hit, but slow enough to take 30 minutes to fly away.

Remind me again which missiles in the US Airforce or US Navy armament fly so slow?

I mean, come on, the US boasts having Avionics that can intercept a Mach 5 missile and still they miss?

Unless they are in on it... it is one big conspiracy I tells ya!

EDIT: oops, did not read... WWII So that is probably why the UFO's nowadays are really fast and never stay anywhere for longer than a few seconds.

 

[fromdownunder]

Yes but have you seen the speed those things travel?...


errrr.... unless it's one of those that goes really slowly of course... luckily the one over LA was fast enough to not get hit, but slow enough to take 30 minutes to fly away.

30 Minutes is pretty good. The last time I was in LA, it took over an hour just to get out of the airport.

Norm

 

[Rramjet]

If you say so. Where is the radar data tape to confirm this?

Not “If you say so” at all... It was Captain Startup - in his book - who lists a routine, pre-flight checklist of over 100 items - and turning on the radar and putting it into standby mode is one of them.

The radar tapes? Good question. Obviously if we had the tapes as direct confirmation, that would add weight to the story. But Dr Maccabee states he had access to the tapes

“The information to be presented is based on this author’s on-site investigation during January and February, 1979, interviews with all the witnesses, analysis of the original movie film and tape recordings, radar information supplied by the radar technician and air traffic controller and upon my subsequent analysis of these events.”​

(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him.

I wonder how he figured he got within 10 miles when there was no radar contact at the time?

The plane’s radar was monitoring the UFO constantly.

It sounds like he executed the turn as soon as he saw the light. Does that sound correct? Was it an exact 90 degree turn or was it 89 degrees? What data can you present to verify that the turn was precisely 90 degees?

Newspapers are notorious for “editing” statements for the sake of “brevity”. However it is what Startup DID say about the angle of the turn that is important here (that it was a 90 degree turn).

The turn was actually 92 degrees: “…the explicit statement of the captain that he turned from 033 magnetic to 125 magnetic or 92^o” (Maccabee, B. (1980) Applied Optics. Vol 19. No. 11 / June)

Based on what you have described about your situation, scientists apparently don't get paid very well. Of course, we do have the scientific investigation conducted by the PEL scientists. Oh that's right, only UFO proponent scientists count in this sort of thing.

What DO you know of my “situation”? Precisely nothing.

Regarding the PEL “investigation” (for which you have provided no references!), I asked you a question that you have yet to answer: Did they discover an AP that could be concurrently tracked by radar and visually sighted over a continuous period of many minutes while it was tracking a moving aircraft?

You have yet to demonstrate this "confirmation" by explaining how one can tell the distance of a light by pure visual observation. The film had no time associated with it and can not be used for precise confirmation of when it was filmed.

The radar indicated an object at a certain location. The witnesses observed a light in that location when they looked. There were NO other lights to be seen. The period of continual radar and visual observation lasted for about 12 minutes (0219 to 0231) and Crocket got 5 ½ minutes of film during that period variously showing the UFO AND at one point, its relationship to the plane.

“During this time Crockett filmed this light using his 100 mm zoom lens. In order to be certain that he obtained images he slowed the frame rate from the normal 24 per second to 10 per second (this would more than double the exposure of each frame). Crockett started filming from his middle seat but, within a minute or so of first seeing the light Crockett got out of his seat and crouched behind the copilot. At one time, to document where the film was taken, he unzoomed to show both the UFO and a small, dimly lit meter that is under the right side window (Figure 12).”​

(A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 - http://brumac.8k.com/)

What more do you want Astrophotographer…that Startup should have tried to crash the plane into it to bring it down…indeed, perhaps Fogarty thought that was what he WAS trying to do when he turned the plane toward the UFO to see what would happen… all this guff about “distance” and “time” is meaningless unless you are proposing that there was a second object out there…an invisible radar target as well as the visual UFO that just happened to lie in exactly the same direction from the plane and at relatively the same altitude… but then you have to explain THAT object as well!

But you can't confirm the radar contact with the light. How do you know he actually was filming the true radar contact? What if the radar picked up something else and the light was much farther away? Prove that the radar contact and the light were one in the same.

Ah…so you ARE proposing a second UFO! Well, please explain THAT UFO to us then. Now you have two UFOs, one visible, one invisible, and both track the plane’s movement in precisely the same way. How DO you explain BOTH UFOs now?

You have yet to rule out all possibilities and you have not demonstrated that boats of any kind were not in the area. Keep peddling Dr. M's story though. I am sure it works well with the UFO crowd.

If there WERE boats, then they had no lights on them because NO boats were seen in the area by ANYONE – not on the southern leg and not on the northern leg – and the ministry of agriculture had NO BOATS in the area either.

So what do we have? It has been demonstrated that no known AP was responsible. It has been demonstrated that there were no boats in the area. It has been demonstrated that there were no other aircraft in the area… so how do YOU explain it Astrophotographer… it was another UFO ostensibly displaying intelligent control… how DO you EXPLAIN that?

It certainly sounds like your mind is made up. The evidence is inadequate. It is based on what the witnesses recall happened. The PEL scientists knew this. You seem to reject anything that does not conform to your own beliefs. Congratulations.

The “evidence is inadequate” for WHAT precisely? It is certainly adequate enough to rule out aircraft, APs and SBs…so inadequate for what Astrophotographer?

…and I’ll just keep pointing out that we also have radar and film confirmation of the UFO as well as the witness accounts. The PEL people knew WHAT precisely? You make all these unfounded assertions yet provide no quotes or references… if the PEL people refuted the UFO then SHOW us the statements or the evidence that they did so!

(Back to McMinnville)

It is as unlikely as an alien spaceship? Your objections are incorrect. You continuously claim that anlaysis has shown that it could not be a hoax but Dr. Hartmann, who did the analysis, did change his opinon and stated it was probably a hoax. Oh, that's right, since he is not a UFO proponent scientist, his opinion does not matter.

Oh, so now you allow a “scientist” to change his mind if it suits YOUR purposes but not allow them to update their analysis with more accurate information – when it does NOT suit your purposes…? Now what IS that word I am looking for…LOL.

…and what WAS the information that got Hartmann to “change his mind”?

The "creationist" school of thought is very simliar to that of UFOlogists then. Aliens created these UFOs, which defy all natural laws because of their superior knowledge and intellect. Of course, we have no evidence that such aliens really exist do we? Isnt' this the same as your interpretaion of "creationism"?

Interesting that you don’t deny that you have now thrown your lot in with the creationists. That you also continue to wilfully misinterpret and misrepresent what I AM claiming is also telling. Who says aliens “created” UFOs… certainly NOT I. All I am saying is, that on the evidence so far, we have seemingly intelligently controlled objects that defy our concepts of the natural and technological world. If YOU want to make them ET (for that IS what you mean by “aliens”), then I contend, and have consistently done so since my very first post in this thread (the OP) that this is a step beyond which there is evidence to support.

When did I EVER claim to being a scientist? I know of only one person in this forum that has made the bold claim that they are a practicing scientist and implied their opinion is beyond reproach.

I never claimed you were a scientist, I merely provided evidence to show that if you ever had any scientific principles, then they were ignored by you. I then asked where those (alleged) principles were.

Only one person…? Then obviously you have not been reading other’s posts over the last few pages (and before). Wollery, Stray Cat, Cuddles and a couple of others (there was evn a recent claim to be a physicists from someone whose main line of work was spectography…) have all at various times claimed to be trained experts in there scientific discipline…

I have never claimed my opinions “beyond reproach”… You are free to disapprove of my opinions at any time. However, I DO have a right to defend myself against your disapproval.

Then you are not clear in presenting your "evidence". It is the same way you keep redefining what you are trying to prove.

If I am not “clear” in presenting my evidence, then why do you act as if it was perfectly clear? So clear in fact that you are able to provide detailed refutations… I don’t “redefine anything… you only need to go back to my OP to see that I have been consistent throughout!

I stated:
” I stated (and you misquoted) that UFOs operate “outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world.” That does NOT mean that the limits of the natural world ARE as we see them, just that is all we CAN see at present and those limits might expand in the future to encompass “aliens” – at which point they are no longer “alien” – but part of the natural order of things. The SAME CANNOT be said about “gods”. Gods are by definition – now and forever – outside the natural order of things. There is a clear difference.”

Really? In one statement you imply that we don't know what the limits of the natural world are. In the other you are stating that gods exist outside those "unknown" limits. Since the "limits" of the known natural world are, by your definition, "undefined", then we can not say for sure where 'gods' exist.

You have hit the nail on the head in pointing out the contradiction in creationist thinking. If “god” exists, he/she/it exists only outside the laws of the natural world. Since the limits of those laws are still undefined, then we cannot say whether there IS any place at all for “god(s)” to exist. Do you STILL want to throw your lot in with the creationists?

You know I have lived a pretty long life and have chased a lot of things I thought were "intriguing". I lost a sum of money in what I thought was an intriguing adventure. I thought the "ancient astronaut" theory was intriguing at one time. I thought that intriguing evidence existed for a creature like bigfoot about the same time. Even in later years, I was intrigued by "cold fusion". However, I discovered that a lot of "intriguing" things usually are not what they seem. As a result of my experience with these things, I have developed a sense of skepticism towards wild claims. What you have presented here is no better than "ancient astronauts", "cold fusion", and "bigfoot". The evidence is not that compelling and this is why scientists (other than a select few) bother wasting their time with it.

Ah, now at last we find where all that angst comes from. You have been “burnt” in the past. You were “ripped of”. You feel hard done by. You now have a “bone to pick” and you want to take all that anger and embarrassment out on ALL UFO proponents. In fact the whole field of UFOlogy (at al.) must now pay the price for what has happened to you… however, IMO underneath all that, you are still wracked by guilt. You need to face up to and acknowledge those feelings – feelings that ANY of us would have in your position. I can empathise with you Astroguy, and anyone worth your acquaintance would empathise with you also. We are ALL, after all, only human, with the same feelings and emotions as any other. IMO Your salvation lies in confronting and dealing with those feelings directly, projecting them outward at others (as anger, scorn, ridicule), might make you feel good in the short term, but such a “point scoring exercise” will not help in the long run.

 

[Access Denied]

What DO you know of my “situation”? Precisely nothing.

That you can't even afford to buy a used book... unless of course you were lying again like you did about being scientist?

Ah, now at last we find where all that angst comes from. You have been “burnt” in the past. You were “ripped of”. You feel hard done by. You now have a “bone to pick” and you want to take all that anger and embarrassment out on ALL UFO proponents. In fact the whole field of UFOlogy (at al.) must now pay the price for what has happened to you… however, IMO underneath all that, you are still wracked by guilt. You need to face up to and acknowledge those feelings – feelings that ANY of us would have in your position. I can empathise with you Astroguy, and anyone worth your acquaintance would empathise with you also. We are ALL, after all, only human, with the same feelings and emotions as any other. IMO Your salvation lies in confronting and dealing with those feelings directly, projecting them outward at others (as anger, scorn, ridicule), might make you feel good in the short term, but such a “point scoring exercise” will not help in the long run.

Were you born an ass or have you always been that way?

 

[carlitos]

As always, I can't be bothered to read any wall o'text. But, just out of curiosity , who the **** is "Captain Startup?" Is he the new spokesman for Windows 8 or what?

 

[Belgian thought]

That you can't even afford to buy a used book... unless of course you were lying again like you did about being scientist?

True, but Rramjet does have a porno mag from 1979, (August to be precise) which I presume is excitedly read when his parents have gone to bed....

 

[GeeMack]

Ah, now at last we find where all that angst comes from. You have been “burnt” in the past. You were “ripped of”. You feel hard done by. You now have a “bone to pick” and you want to take all that anger and embarrassment out on ALL UFO proponents. In fact the whole field of UFOlogy (at al.) must now pay the price for what has happened to you… however, IMO underneath all that, you are still wracked by guilt. You need to face up to and acknowledge those feelings – feelings that ANY of us would have in your position. I can empathise with you Astroguy, and anyone worth your acquaintance would empathise with you also. We are ALL, after all, only human, with the same feelings and emotions as any other. IMO Your salvation lies in confronting and dealing with those feelings directly, projecting them outward at others (as anger, scorn, ridicule), might make you feel good in the short term, but such a “point scoring exercise” will not help in the long run.

Now there's some compelling argument to support the claim that aliens exist. Are you still paying attention, SnidelyW? Remember all your fawning and bootlicking here...

Throughout this thread, and the thread regarding 'aliens', Rramjet has been extremely cordial, patient, and consistent in his arguments. He has shown respect for alternative points of view, and has handled the 'ganging up' on his arguments with aplomb.

​

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah. Which thread has SnidelyW been reading?

 

[Rramjet]

Were you born an ass or have you always been that way?

I was born that way... What's your excuse?

 

[Akhenaten]

That's better mate. Keep your posts short, sharp and to the point and people will be happy to read them and engage you.

The walls o' text are just boring everyone to tears.

Can you do a decent shoop? People love those.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[Stray Cat]

The radar tapes? Good question. Obviously if we had the tapes as direct confirmation, that would add weight to the story. But Dr Maccabee states he had access to the tapes

“The information to be presented is based on this author’s on-site investigation during January and February, 1979, interviews with all the witnesses, analysis of the original movie film and tape recordings, radar information supplied by the radar technician and air traffic controller and upon my subsequent analysis of these events.”​

​

Notice it's movie film and tape recordings...

... but then radar information. Not radar tapes?
"Information" is a bit sketchy isn't it?
This could be just what they told him from memory?

and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him.

You have no reason to disbelieve him... People with a critical eye have plenty of reason.

 

[Belgian thought]

I was born that way... What's your excuse?

Again, we have here evidence of poor reading comprehension which is indicative of intelligence.

Therefore, in keeping with Akhenaten's proposal, maybe we should simply answer Rramjet's posts with "WHATEVER RR", and "NOT EVIDENCE FOR ALIENS".

 

[Marduk]

Therefore, in keeping with Akhenaten's proposal,

is it just me or does "the Akhenaten proposal" sound like a fairly decent thriller