UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Here is some further evidence and analysis concerning the The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971) that we have been discussing recently.

The following site contains some photos of the UFO landing ring, taken 10minutes, 16 hours and 3.5 years after the event.
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
There is also a link to a subsequent soil analysis conducted in 1999
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf).

Interestingly there is also a case which echoes the Delphos UFO landing;
The Port Coquitlam, Vancouver Landing (16 Aug 1974)
(http://www.think-aboutit.com/thinke...les/2049-three-small-boys-witness-ufo-landing).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

However, I am not sure what you mean by “both links”…

You posted a link to the same 404 error twice.

I claimed that about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms[...]

No you didn't. Your claim was: "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation".

[...]the research literature suggest that might even be an underestimate of the actual figure.

The quotes you gave had only one part relevant to the claim you made which was "[...]of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an 'Excellent' reliability[...]". And that doesn't back up your claim of 20%.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ETA: Nor does that 9.7% being classified as "excellent" in terms of reliability back up your claim that "the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation".

 

[SOdhner]

Perhaps you would like to review the numerous posts on the matter contained in the last three (or more) pages in this thread - where quite a number of points were raised and explored indicating the veracity of the article (that it was not a hoax).

I could find no such thing. I found some unfounded assertions from you, all of which were countered in my post. All we know is that there was a letter in a magazine.

Given all the evidence, it is simply not plausible to consider the article a hoax.

The evidence shows that there was a letter published in the magazine. We have no proof that the events happened at all. I'm sure if I felt like it I could get a similar letter published in a similar magazine today - that would not prove that any events described in the letter genuinely happened.

Not sure however what the Venezuela case has to do with the case you reference:

Nothing directly - I just don't want to waste my time. Since you had not responded to my previous points about the ways in which the letter is consistent with a hoax, I wasn't sure if you were ignoring me (in which case there's no point in me doing as you asked and discussing the case) or if you show a total resistance to points that disagree with your established views (in which case we're going to hit a brick wall and again there's no point).

The other option, of course, is that you are open to other ideas and just disagree - if that's the case you'll have to help me out and point to anything that refutes what I said in my post, as I was unable to find any such thing when re-reading the discussion of the case.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated that:
” I claimed that about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

No you didn’t. Your claim was: "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation".

Regarding the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

”In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications were based on ATIC s previous experience in analysis of the data. They had found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpretations of common objects or natural phenomena. Accordingly, categories for objects most frequently present in the air were provided. Balloons, aircraft, astronomical bodies (such as meteors), birds, and clouds or dust were recognized as major categories. The less frequent, but common objects, such as kites, fireworks, flares, rockets, contrails, and meteorological phenomena like small tornadoes, were collected into a category called OTHER. A separate category for the uncommon natural phenomena associated with light reflections or refractions, such as mirages, sun dogs, inversion-layer images, and distortions caused by airborne ice, was established with the title of LIGHT PHENOMENON. Categories for INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and UNKNOWN were provided for the sightings that could not be fitted into the preceding identifications.” (pp.11-12)​

The categorisation of UNKNOWN was as follows:

This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

I also stated that:
”While overall, 21.5% of all reports studied were classified as Unknown, it is interesting to note that of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an “Excellent” reliability - and of those 71 (33.3%) were classified as “Unknown” (p.24).”

I therefore believe any fair reading of the above information (drawn and quoted as it was directly from the study) would enable the conclusion that ”…about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

The quotes you gave had only one part relevant to the claim you made which was "[...]of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an 'Excellent' reliability[...]". And that doesn't back up your claim of 20%.

Indeed, as I later pointed out, that conclusion of “20%” actually understates the true figure (but I find it prudent to be quite conservative when quoting research findings).

ETA: Nor does that 9.7% being classified as "excellent" in terms of reliability back up your claim that "the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation".

Of the “Excellent” reliability cases, a full 33.3% of them were classified as “UNKNOWN” (p.24) That means that for 33% of those cases (as I stated) "the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation".

It is also notable that as the reliability of the cases decreased (from “Excellent” through “Good” and “Doubtful” to “Poor”), the proportion of “mundane explanation” cases rises until, for the lowest reliability cases (“Poor”), only 16.6% of cases were classified as “UNKNOWN”. This is an extremely interesting and significant finding and means that the more reliable the observer the greater the likelihood that a conclusion of “UNKNOWN” would result.

Dr. Allan J. Hynek (who for 20 years was the scientific consultant to the Blue Book project – from which the Battelle Study drew its data) also noted:

”The Battelle study further differentiated between military observers and civilians and found nearly 38 percent of the “Excellent” reports turned in by military observers were “Unknowns” while only 21 percent of the military reports rated “Poor” were “Unknowns”. The Hynek UFO Report (1978) Sphere Books Ltd. London. p.277)​

This means of course that military observers are actually more reliable than civilian observers. A point that the UFO debunkers try to hammer home every time a military UFO case is presented is that pilots etc are just as prone to observational error as civilian observers (perhaps more so as they have less reference points in the air), however, the research indicates that quite the opposite is the case: military observers are demonstrably more reliable than civilian observers!

Hynek also noted in reference to the Condon Report that ”Condon and others had indeed indicated that the unexplained sightings came invariably from poor observers” (p.276), yet the Battelle study had been published and available to Condon - and the Battelle study shows Condon to be incorrect in his conclusions here - the more reliable the observation, the greater the likelihood of a conclusion of "Unknown".

 

[Access Denied]

Of the “Excellent” reliability cases, a full 33.3% of them were classified as “UNKNOWN”…

In other words they couldn’t be identified.

ox·y·mo·ron noun
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

…the more reliable the observation, the greater the likelihood of a conclusion of "Unknown".

Does anybody else see the irony here?

I move that this thread be retitled…

“Aliens”: The Lack of Research, the Absence of Evidence

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I therefore believe any fair reading of the above information (drawn and quoted as it was directly from the study) would enable the conclusion that ”…about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

The claim you made was: "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation". You have yet to provide evidence to support that claim. Are you now retracting it, or will you provide evidence to support it?

 

[tomi71]

Unknown is not same as unidentified. For example you see a strange animal in the forest that is unknown to you. You still recognize the animal NOT to be a bear, an owl, a lion, a squirrel etc. etc. This means that when something is unknown there can still be a plenty of information about that something. We can still know what it is NOT, even though we can´t say what it is.

See the difference?

 

[Jocce]

” I claimed that about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

Regarding the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

”In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications were based on ATIC s previous experience in analysis of the data. They had found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpretations of common objects or natural phenomena. Accordingly, categories for objects most frequently present in the air were provided. Balloons, aircraft, astronomical bodies (such as meteors), birds, and clouds or dust were recognized as major categories. The less frequent, but common objects, such as kites, fireworks, flares, rockets, contrails, and meteorological phenomena like small tornadoes, were collected into a category called OTHER. A separate category for the uncommon natural phenomena associated with light reflections or refractions, such as mirages, sun dogs, inversion-layer images, and distortions caused by airborne ice, was established with the title of LIGHT PHENOMENON. Categories for INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and UNKNOWN were provided for the sightings that could not be fitted into the preceding identifications.” (pp.11-12)​

The categorisation of UNKNOWN was as follows:

This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

I also stated that:
”While overall, 21.5% of all reports studied were classified as Unknown, it is interesting to note that of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an “Excellent” reliability - and of those 71 (33.3%) were classified as “Unknown” (p.24).”

I therefore believe any fair reading of the above information (drawn and quoted as it was directly from the study) would enable the conclusion that ”…about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

I don't know where you got your math education but 71/2199 is around 3%, not 20. Care to elaborate?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” Of the “Excellent” reliability cases, a full 33.3% of them were classified as “UNKNOWN”…”

In other words they couldn’t be identified.

”This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

So “in other words”, no plausible mundane explanation could be found for the sighting.

ox•y•mo•ron noun
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Of course in stating this you mean that you cannot understand how a report can be deemed to be “reliable” - yet still have the sighting judged as “Unknown”.

To clarify:

To categorise a report’s reliability, two scores were assigned - one each for the observer and the report drawn from the following scale:

”X
Y
0 Complete
1 Quite
2 Fair
3 Doubtful
4 Poor
5 Not
6
7
8
9 Cannot be judged” (p.308) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

The considerations taken into account when creating those two reliability scores were:

”Ratings were assigned on the basis of the following factors of information, 'considered in relation to one another:

(1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his occupation, age, and training;

(2) The consistency among the separate portions of the description of the sighting;

(3) The general quality and completeness of the report;

(4) Consideration of the observer' s fact-reporting ability and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing the sighting.” (p.11) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

The overall report reliability categorisation was then assigned in consideration of both the observer and report reliability scores as follows:

”Excellent (Observer 0 or 1 and Report 0 or l)
Good (Observer 0 or 1, Report 2, 3, or 4; Observer 2, 3, or 4, Report 0 or l; Observer
2, Report 2)
Doubtful (Observer 0 or 1, Report 5 or 9; Observer 2, Report 3, 4, 5, or 9; Observer
3 or 4, Report 2, 3, 4, 5, or 9; Observer 5 or 9, Report 0, .1, 2, 3, or 4)
Poor (Observer 5, 9, or Y, Report 5, 9, or Y)” (p.308) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

This score is then completely independent of any categorisation of the report as “known” (there exists a plausible mundane explanation for the sighting) or “Unknown” (the sighting defies plausible mundane explanation). Thus your charge of “oxymoron” is completely unfounded.

The claim you made was: "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation". You have yet to provide evidence to support that claim. Are you now retracting it, or will you provide evidence to support it?

I have explained to you on more than one occasion now that the “20%” figure was a conservative reading of the research findings. The overall figure in the Battelle study was actually 21.5% (and on the order of between 30-40% if the “Poor” and “Doubtful”, etc. reports are removed). Confirming this, in the later Condon Report, 33% of sightings remained unexplained (http://ncas.org/condon/). So there is the research. There is the evidence.

Unknown is not same as unidentified. For example you see a strange animal in the forest that is unknown to you. You still recognize the animal NOT to be a bear, an owl, a lion, a squirrel etc. etc. This means that when something is unknown there can still be a plenty of information about that something. We can still know what it is NOT, even though we can´t say what it is.

See the difference?

This is a very good point tomi. It is often the case that a great deal about the characteristics of the sighted object can be described (size, shape, velocity, manoeuvrability, sound, smell, general appearance, etc and so on), and given that level of characteristic detail, it is then surprising that the sighting can still defy plausible mundane explanation.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”Perhaps you would like to review the numerous posts on the matter contained in the last three (or more) pages in this thread - where quite a number of points were raised and explored indicating the veracity of the article (that it was not a hoax).”

I could find no such thing. I found some unfounded assertions from you, all of which were countered in my post.

Oh really..?

Right, having just written a post that shows it's more likely that the family in the Maracaibo incident were telling the truth…

All we know is that there was a letter in a magazine.

Obviously that is all you know …I have indicated to you that you should go back a few pages and read the posts concerning the Venezuela/Maracaibo incident (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG). You missed the above from wollery just two pages back (and the post it refers to) – perhaps you should look again..?

Rramjet, I took the time to read about this case with the glowing ring on both sites you linked and a few others as well. I have some thoughts on it that I would like to share with you.

Not sure however what the Venezuela case has to do with the case you reference:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

…but I am sure you will enlighten us as to your thoughts on the matter?

…there's no point...

Why post at all then?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have explained to you on more than one occasion now that the “20%” figure was a conservative reading of the research findings. The overall figure in the Battelle study was actually 21.5% (and on the order of between 30-40% if the “Poor” and “Doubtful”, etc. reports are removed). Confirming this, in the later Condon Report, 33% of sightings remained unexplained (http://ncas.org/condon/). So there is the research. There is the evidence.

I know what you've explained to me. What you've explained to me, and the evidence you've presented, however, do not back up your original claim that "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation". Now, are you going to back that statement up or retract it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I therefore believe any fair reading of the above information (drawn and quoted as it was directly from the study) would enable the conclusion that ”…about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms”

What were the 20 questions you asked to eliminate all mundane explanations in the NASA video, who did you ask them of, and what were the answers?

 

[SOdhner]

You missed the above from wollery just two pages back (and the post it refers to) – perhaps you should look again..?

I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant. That point is one that presupposes that the letter itself is genuine, whereas my point was about the possibility that the entire thing is a hoax. They are unrelated arguments. A hoax can be internally consistent and still be wholly false.

In fact, if you were to read the post in question more carefully you would see that Wollery even makes a brief reference to this:

I'll start by going through the letter and analysing what is factual content, i.e. things that Cowgill could have first hand knowledge of, assuming that he is telling the truth.

There you go - "assuming that he is telling the truth". I am not making that assumption, because I don't think that assumption is a safe one to make.

Why post at all then?

Wow. That was the most blatant quote-mining I've ever seen on these forums. Let's try it again with the actual quote:

I wasn't sure if you were ignoring me (in which case there's no point in me doing as you asked and discussing the case)

I said that IF you were ignoring me there would be no point in discussing the case you asked about - my concern was that I would waste time talking to a brick wall. So far this hasn't been much better. I want to chalk it up to confusion or honest mistakes but the quote mining makes that hard.

Still, I'll assume the best for now.

So back to the actual question. What reason do you have for dismissing the possibility that the letter was a hoax as a reasonable mundane explanation? What proof do you have other than the letter itself that the events even happened?

 

[Rramjet]

I know what you've explained to me. What you've explained to me, and the evidence you've presented, however, do not back up your original claim that "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation". Now, are you going to back that statement up or retract it?

I am not sure what to make of your continued pressing of this point when I have supplied you the evidence in a number of posts already… It does point toward the fact that you do not understand how the evidence I have presented supports my contention, but I just don’t see how you could fail to understand…

I can only presume that you have not read the actual Battelle study report (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) and that since I have - I am somehow unwittingly assuming some knowledge that is in that report that you obviously do not possess - but I just can’t think of what specifically that might be… Possibly it could be that you simply don’t understand how the researchers categorised the reports? For example:

Balloon
Astronomical
Aircraft
Light phenomenon
Birds
Clouds, dust, etc.
Insufficient information
Psychological manifestations
Unknown
Other (p.10)​

In this respect everything that is not “Unknown” is obviously an eyewitness “error” of some sort. Given that the “Unknown” category comprised (more than) 20% of the reports (and of those, the most reliable reports returned a value of 33% unknown) then it is reasonable to state that (at least) 20% of the reports could not be plausibly attributed to eyewitness error. Please, tell me what it is you don’t understand about that (…but before you do, please read the report – the first 12 or so pages will suffice if you don’t want to read the whole thing…).

I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant. That point is one that presupposes that the letter itself is genuine, whereas my point was about the possibility that the entire thing is a hoax. They are unrelated arguments. A hoax can be internally consistent and still be wholly false.

Please tell me what you don’t understand about ”Perhaps you would like to review the numerous posts on the matter contained in the last three (or more) pages in this thread - where quite a number of points were raised and explored indicating the veracity of the article (that it was not a hoax).”

Those posts talk about much more evidence for veracity than mere internal consistency. I am not going to review the evidence again because it is all contained within those posts and I am sure it is not beyond your capabilities to read over them.

I said that IF you were ignoring me there would be no point in discussing the case you asked about…

First, I am patently not ignoring you (just because I disagree with your points does not mean I am ignoring you!). Second, I did not ask for your comments on the case - you offered them of your own volition - without my solicitation – and you have failed to deliver…

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

Perhaps you will provide us your thoughts now?

So back to the actual question. What reason do you have for dismissing the possibility that the letter was a hoax as a reasonable mundane explanation? What proof do you have other than the letter itself that the events even happened?

So back to the case you are willing to discuss… Look, the work has already been done in the last few pages. I am not going to repeat that work merely for your benefit (taking up valuable time and expending energy I just don’t have right now) when all you have to do is go back and read!

But of course in my opinion this type of behaviour from the UFO debunkers seems par for the course. They won’t read the reports, they won’t review the available evidence, yet they still presume to have an opinion. Well anyone can have an opinion, what matters to me is whether that is an informed opinion or merely an opinion based on unfounded assertions and hearsay “received wisdom”. The evidence is available - please take advantage of that fact to review it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

For Delphos: What mundane explanations have you eliminated and how did you eliminate them? This time, be specific. What 20 questions did you ask, who did you ask them of, and what were the answers?

I have a mundane explanation and I'd like to see where you went wrong in your version of a process of elimination.

 

[SOdhner]

Please tell me what you don’t understand about ”Perhaps you would like to review the numerous posts on the matter contained in the last three (or more) pages in this thread

Once again, your reply has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. You specifically pointed out a post. I showed why it has nothing to do with my point. Now you are ignoring that and backing up to your more general assertion that it has been addressed "somewhere".

You can't point out a specific post, because it doesn't exist. The fact remains that we have no way to know that the letter is anything more than a hoax, and so that remains a plausible mundane explanation.

First, I am patently not ignoring you (just because I disagree with your points does not mean I am ignoring you!).

At no point did I say that you were ignoring me. You are once again being dishonest in your quoting. The line you quoted was me pointing out that your PREVIOUS quote was dishonest, going back to something I said several posts ago expalining why I had not just dived into this new case - namely that you hadn't responded to my post on the previous case. I never actually said you were ignoring me, I just explained that I had been waiting for a reply because I thought that was a possibility. Clearly, now that you have replied to me you have shown that you are not ignoring me.

Second, I did not ask for your comments on the case - you offered them of your own volition - without my solicitation – and you have failed to deliver…

That's just not true. You put the case out there asking for comment. When I showed interest in discussing it, you asked me for more information.

Perhaps you will provide us your thoughts now?

And hey, there you just did it again.

Look, the work has already been done in the last few pages. I am not going to repeat that work merely for your benefit (taking up valuable time and expending energy I just don’t have right now) when all you have to do is go back and read!

You don't need to re-do anything. Just link to a post where you show any reason that the letter can't be a hoax. I've re-read the posts as you suggested and confirmed that there's nothing there. If you are going to dismiss plausible mundane solutions out of hand, what point is there in jumping from case to case with you?

But of course in my opinion this type of behaviour from the UFO debunkers seems par for the course. They won’t read the reports, they won’t review the available evidence, yet they still presume to have an opinion.

1. I'm not a "UFO Debunker". I don't even know what you mean by that - do you think I deny that people see flying objects they can't identify? I don't. Do you mean I insist these things can't ever be aliens? I don't. I just want to base things off of evidence where possible, and if I have to suggest solutions where not enough information is available to be sure I tend towards plausible mundane explanations because if I jump right to the implausible and fantastic where do I stop? Why, for example, would I say the Argentina thing was aliens at all? Why not some psychic event? Why not some cryptozoological incident?

2. I have read the reports. I have reviewed the evidence. In the Argentina case none of the reports, evidence, or even commentary here suggest that there is reason to dismiss the idea that it is a hoax.

 

[Jocce]

In this respect everything that is not “Unknown” is obviously an eyewitness “error” of some sort. Given that the “Unknown” category comprised (more than) 20% of the reports (and of those, the most reliable reports returned a value of 33% unknown) then it is reasonable to state that (at least) 20% of the reports could not be plausibly attributed to eyewitness error. Please, tell me what it is you don’t understand about that (…but before you do, please read the report – the first 12 or so pages will suffice if you don’t want to read the whole thing…).

This is related to my previous post that you still haven't answered. You wrote:

”While overall, 21.5% of all reports studied were classified as Unknown, it is interesting to note that of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an “Excellent” reliability - and of those 71 (33.3%) were classified as “Unknown” (p.24).”

I then said that 77/2199 is around 3%, not 20%. I don't understand why you claim that (at least) about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms. A big portion of those are of lower quality.

 

[Rramjet]

For Delphos: What mundane explanations have you eliminated and how did you eliminate them? This time, be specific. What 20 questions did you ask, who did you ask them of, and what were the answers?

I have a mundane explanation and I'd like to see where you went wrong in your version of a process of elimination.

As you seem to be paying particularly close attention to my posts, I am then at a loss to explain how you could have missed my introduction to the Delphos UFO landing case (on this very page):

In the interests of injecting some new material into the debate, lets; try a little process of elimination on this case:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Did it have wings? Obviously not an aeroplane then. What about its size? Six to eight feet in diameter! Obviously not a helicopter, hot air balloon, dirigible or blimp… and what about manoeuvrability? Can’t conclude much from that …small military experimental hovercraft perhaps? But then why would this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-447317/The-flying-saucer-snapped-US-army.html) win a contract with the US government in 2007 if they already had them in 1971?! (and why the excitement over this little number - http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/144164/new-firefighting-tool-could-save-lives.glance ?) And what about the brightness of the light… Okay, so what about a hoax? But then you have to account for the physical trace evidence – the “ring” on the ground, the glowing substance… the ring was ”vegetal in nature and belonged to an organism of the order of Actinomycetales…” ” Actinomycetaceae is a family of bacteria in the order that contains the medically important genus Actinomyces.” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomycetaceae_Family.asp) and “morphologically Actinomyces colonies form fungus-like branched networks of hyphae (…) Actinomyces are known for causing disease in humans, and for the important role they play in soil ecology” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomyces_Genus.asp#cite_note-Holt_1994-0). So rings? And what of the nature of that ring? ” The circle was still very distinct and plain to see. the soil was dried and crusted. The circle or ring was approximately 8 feet across, the center of the ring and the outside area were still muddy from recent rains. The area of the ring that was dried was about a foot across and was very light in color. (…) Further experimentation showed the ground under the ring to be dry to a depth of one foot. The ring itself was composed of a whitish substance, which was sent to a laboratory for analysis.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html), yet ” One of those ingredients turns out to be bacteria with a pretty unpronounceable name - actinomycetes. These bacteria flourish in damp, warm soils. (…) Actinomycetes bacteria mean healthy soil and healthy people. Researchers have isolated several antibiotics from ordinary garden dirt. Something to think about the next time you take a stroll after a rainstorm.” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12716163). This ring was hardly “healthy soil” and Actinomycetes have never been noted to grow into a ring of dry, hydrophilic soil such as was noted. So very strange indeed.

All this tends to rule our plausible mundane explanations as a cause. Perhaps though I have missed something? If so, I have no doubt someone will be able to inform me…

Not long after that post I added the following information about the case:

Here is some further evidence and analysis concerning the The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971) that we have been discussing recently.

The following site contains some photos of the UFO landing ring, taken 10minutes, 16 hours and 3.5 years after the event.
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
There is also a link to a subsequent soil analysis conducted in 1999
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf).

Interestingly there is also a case which echoes the Delphos UFO landing;
The Port Coquitlam, Vancouver Landing (16 Aug 1974)
(http://www.think-aboutit.com/thinke...les/2049-three-small-boys-witness-ufo-landing).

Your mundane explanation for the Delphos UFO Landing case is then..?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As you seem to be paying particularly close attention to my posts, I am then at a loss to explain how you could have missed my introduction to the Delphos UFO landing case (on this very page):



Not long after that post I added the following information about the case:



Your mundane explanation for the Delphos UFO Landing case is then..?

For the witnesses' extraordinary claims for what they saw, the witnesses were mistaken or hoaxing. I didn't see where you had eliminated those two. I see where you dismissed hoaxing out of hand and didn't address being mistaken at all.

For the fairy ring on the ground (what you're referring to as a UFO landing ring due to your assumptions about "aliens") it is a known fungus.

As you don't seem to be paying particularly close attention to my posts, I'll ask it a different way: Who is answering your 20 questions? The answer seems to be "Rramjet".