UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

I have had numerous UFO sightings - but one of the most mundane occurred as follows.

(Names of participants deleted to protect their privacy) …“Those stars are moving”. And he pointed up into the western night sky. I looked up but could see nothing except a huge number of stars (it was a very clear night). “Where?” I asked. “There”, he said pointing. I stood up and so did he. I followed his pointed finger and there they were: Four tiny star-like points of light in a row, about 70 degrees up, moving south to north. Very high up. Satellite height. They had a similar brightness to stars – but they were not twinkling. The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds. Then there was a third object trailing them on the same track, perhaps two finger widths back - and a little further back again – maybe three finger widths, a fourth one. All following precisely the same track. They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north. From the time of sighting (almost due west) to when they disappeared in the northwest was about 20 seconds.

How does one even begin to explain that sighting in mundane terms? Those oscillations simply defy mundane explanation. I have others that are even more strange - if anyone is interested I can relate some of those too...

I'd say with near certainty that It'll have been one of those UFO's then Rramjet.
Of course we'll have to take your word for it that you perceived it accurately and that you're reporting it accurately.

 

[Rramjet]

I'd say with near certainty that It'll have been one of those UFO's then Rramjet.
Of course we'll have to take your word for it that you perceived it accurately and that you're reporting it accurately.

Yep - as you say - "one of those UFOs" (well - more than one actually...) I just thought I'd throw in a genuine UFO report (rather than the misidentified mundane sightings so far described in this thread - seems UFO debunkers are not very good at determining obvious mundane objects when first seen... perhaps that is why they are suspicious of other's reports?).

...and yes ...you'll have to take my word for it (shrugs) - it is as accurate as the paticipants recall, written down and agreed to the next morning. It is also one of the most mundane UFO sightings I have direct involvement in (didn't want to stretch the brains of the disbelievers too much with my first post in this thread. LOL Just a gentle introduction to the world of genuine UFO sightings.)

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd say with near certainty that It'll have been one of those UFO's then Rramjet.
Of course we'll have to take your word for it that you perceived it accurately and that you're reporting it accurately.

I think we have to take the True Believers^TM tales with a grain of salt. They don't want to know if they are mundane.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How does one even begin to explain that sighting in mundane terms?

Sounds rather like a helicopter with flashing lights on the rotors to me.

 

[23_Tauri]

The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds.

Disclaimer: I know very little about UFO identification but I have a layperson's question. I hope it doesn't sound too ignorant...

Rramjet you say the objects appeared to be a long way off. This oscillation, could it be caused by an atmospheric effect similar to heat haze during the day, (but not heat haze because the ground and air would be cooling at night) thereby making the two objects appear as if they were oscillating from where you were standing? Maybe this was an optical effect caused by some characteristic of the air that night and not caused by the movement of the objects themselves?

Can anyone with the right knowledge tell if if this might be the case or if I'm taking BS. Thanks

 

[Jocce]

I stated:
” It seems Hynek was precisely correct when he stated “the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests”!

I don't see how spending 15+ pages to disucuss the results, redo the test and analyze it again can be described as "completely disregard" but to each his own I guess.

Oh, I am sorry …you seem to have missed the following statement:

”It is apparent that the deletion of astronomical sightings gives a better fit, although the decision is not clear cut, since for two cases (light brightness and speed), the chi square increased.” (p.69)​

And would you like to present the suggested explanation for this increase that the authors of the Battelle study presents or do I have to do it for you?

Note they say “better fit”. They do not state the differences became non-significant. They state “better fit” because (and what you have clearly missed in the “revised” tests), while some Chi-square test statistics decreased (became relatively less significant) they remained significant!*

You must completely have missed that there was a much better fit on all points analyzed except the two you mentioned and that there is a plausible reason for this misfit.

Meaning of course the conclusion that the UNKNOWNS are significantly different from the KNOWNS – even on this spuriously revised analysis - still stands! Not only that – the previously non-significant result (brightness) became significant!

That's not the conclusion at all. Read the report:

since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS

One could legitimately conclude from the results of the revised analysis that it is stronger evidence of a significant difference between the UNKNOWNS and the KNOWNS – and not (as they have done) weaker…

Seriously? You think anyone buys that a better fit is stronger evidence of a significant difference between UNKNOWNS and KNOWNS.

So it seems that Dr Hynek remains correct:

”…the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273) (bolding my own. Rr.)​

Since the resuts were not at all completely ignored it seems as if he is completely incorrect in making that statement.

No matter how much you attempt to ignore the actual data and the results of analyses Jocce – any fair minded person who actually takes the time to examine the data and the results would be forced to conclude precisely as Dr Hynek does. There is no getting away from the fact that the report’s conclusions (as you have pointed to) are in direct opposition to the actual data and results.

I disagree and have explained why.

Like Condon after them, they simply ignore the results to conclude according to preconceived notions of what they want the conclusions to be

Isn't this called projection?

 

[Akhenaten]

Disclaimer: I know very little about UFO identification but I have a layperson's question. I hope it doesn't sound too ignorant...

Rramjet you say the objects appeared to be a long way off. This oscillation, could it be caused by an atmospheric effect similar to heat haze during the day, (but not heat haze because the ground and air would be cooling at night) thereby making the two objects appear as if they were oscillating from where you were standing? Maybe this was an optical effect caused by some characteristic of the air that night and not caused by the movement of the objects themselves?

Can anyone with the right knowledge tell if if this might be the case or if I'm taking BS. Thanks

I can help a little bit.

First up, heat haze does happen at night. I've spent a fair bit of time flying around in the GAFA* and it's not at all uncommon to see the Moon and stars wobbling about like jelly when they get down near the horizon.

Secondly, flashing or oscillating objects seem to be fairly common. I do my jogging thing in the very early hours of the morning and see them all the time. I have no reason to believe they're anything other than tumbling, (revolving? rotating?) satellites. There's a bit of an article about these things here.

The most common types are the bright flash/not-so-bright flash ones, and while I'm pretty sure I've seen a few cases of things flying in tandem, I wouldn't swear to it, with the exception of watching two consecutive fly-overs of Atlantis and Mir in 1995 as they were approaching rendevous.

A quad flasher like Rramjet's sounds rather extraordinary. Pity we have no extraordinary evidence for it.

Here's some ordinary evidence for a single flasher:

​

* Great Australian [naughty word]-All

 

[Stray Cat]

seems UFO debunkers are not very good at determining obvious mundane objects when first seen... perhaps that is why they are suspicious of other's reports?).

It seems that it's not only UFO debunkers who are not very good at determining obvious mundane objects when first seen doesn't it?
The difference is that on the whole, sceptical, critical thinkers tend to want to discount the mundane before jumping on the exotic band wagon. Something that UFOgists tend to miss out.

...and yes ...you'll have to take my word for it (shrugs) - it is as accurate as the paticipants recall, written down and agreed to the next morning.

Wow! a sighting that has had such an impact on someone and yet they didn't 'agree' to it and write it down that night. Well I suppose it's always better to sleep on these things first.

It is also one of the most mundane UFO sightings I have direct involvement in (didn't want to stretch the brains of the disbelievers too much with my first post in this thread. LOL Just a gentle introduction to the world of genuine UFO sightings.)

But no one disputes genuine UFOs.
People see stuff they can't identify in the sky all the time as is evidences by all the "UFO debunkers" telling their stories in this thread.

 

[Rramjet]

Im fascinated by some sightings, even though I'm well aware that 95% have an explanation.

Clearly you have not read the research (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) that finds that more than 20% of UFO reports cannot be explained in mundane terms (and it must be admitted, neither have most UFO proponents).

Rramjet you say the objects appeared to be a long way off. This oscillation, could it be caused by an atmospheric effect similar to heat haze during the day, (but not heat haze because the ground and air would be cooling at night) thereby making the two objects appear as if they were oscillating from where you were standing? Maybe this was an optical effect caused by some characteristic of the air that night and not caused by the movement of the objects themselves?

If it were atmospheric haze then all four of the UFOs would have been affected, not just the two at the head of the procession.

It seems that it's not only UFO debunkers who are not very good at determining obvious mundane objects when first seen doesn't it?

(Shrugs) Merely going on the evidence of the “reports” posted by the debunkers in this thread demonstrating they are clearly poor at interpreting obvious mundane objects.

Wow! a sighting that has had such an impact on someone and yet they didn't 'agree' to it and write it down that night. Well I suppose it's always better to sleep on these things first.

You’re kidding right? The strange thing was that one of the participants simply refused to get up and even have a look to see what we were talking about. I have come across that attitude before as well – and I have to ask – what is it about UFOs that some people will simply not even look when the event is actually occurring (!) – let alone examine the evidence in reports after the event.

People see stuff they can't identify in the sky all the time as is evidences by all the "UFO debunkers" telling their stories in this thread.

I have another personal experience:

(Four witnesses involved - 10 minute sighting)
Passenger jet passes overhead. West to East. (About 1200m up according to later Webtrack investigation). As we watched the plane – because it was a highly unusual tracking for a passenger plane to be on – we noticed an almost sky blue “balloon” above it. Quite large - as large as the tail fin of the plane – but above the plane. Sort of “round” but looking as if there are stubby protuberances extending from it. Looks as if “balloon arms” come out of it. Large fluffy, white cumulous clouds above.

Plane goes. “Balloon” slowly heading west (toward us) as if drifting on the wind (but according to the clouds the wind is actually out of the Northwest at that altitude… so it is moving against the wind). Then it simply stops and hangs there unmoving.

Suddenly from below and slightly south we notice some mirror bright flashes in the sunlight. Something is rising up as if to meet the “balloon”! The flashing is exactly as if what is rising is a randomly shaped object with mirror bright surfaces, tumbling randomly upward toward the “balloon”. It is a much smaller object than the “balloon”. Sort of ephemeral but the flashing is very bright.

The “flasher” does not in fact meet the balloon, just rises to the same height but only to within a short distance to the north of it. Both stop for a few seconds in space and just hang there. The balloon just being blue and kind of lumpy and the “flasher” just flashing.

Suddenly the flasher is just gone. No longer there - and the balloon begins moving again to rise and disappear into the cloud just above it. We have occasional glimpses as it comes below and out of the cloud and then it rises into cloud again. For a short while there is nothing to be seen at all.

Suddenly the flasher reappears further toward the west, now nearly directly overhead (as if it has travelled due west without us seeing it). It continues travelling west. We have a momentary illusion that it is actually falling toward ground as it passes directly overhead – but it must be actually ascending as it travels west - as it goes toward and then into a cloud.

Clouds continually dissipating and reforming (travelling slowly southeast on the wind).

Balloon then reappears further to the north of its original position, but now very high up, almost a speck. Obviously still rising. The cloud around it finally dissipates altogether and the balloon simply disappears upward at the limit of vision. No sign or reappearance of the flasher.​

My first thought was "Oh, it's probably an airliner". Their first thought is "Oh, it might be extraterrestrial!" A skeptic does not leap to any conclusion that seems out of the ordinary. The starting assumption is that whatever it is, it probably has a simple explanation. Extraterrestrials visiting earth is not a simple explanation.

As a skeptic myself, I think you are simply overgeneralising. I think it fair to say that everyone who experiences a genuine UFO encounter begins with the assumption that it is something mundane. They quickly run through a list of mundane things that it could be, then are completely surprised and baffled when no mundane explanation can be found. THAT is the natural human reaction arthwollipot. You are simply letting your own biases determine your beliefs.

Even if extraterrestrial intelligent life can, physically, visit earth, I don't think they'll be setting down alongside some poor guy no-one's going to believe, and strutting up and down wearing silly antennae on their heads making "beep beep" noises.

Yeah right – and now your preconceived biases are on naked display for all to see. Silly antennae and going “beep beep”? Oh please…

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Clearly you have not read the research (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) that finds that more than 20% of UFO reports cannot be explained in mundane terms (and it must be admitted, neither have most UFO proponents).

No, that's not what the report says. It says that those cases have not been explained in mundane terms - which implies that a mundane explanation is still possible, not that they cannot - which implies that a mundane explanation has been ruled out.

I don't think it's productive to start the same conversation in a second thread, so I'd advise anybody wanting to follow this line of debate to read it in the moderated thread, beginning with this post:

However, 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.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm fascinated by some sightings, even though I'm well aware that 95% have an explanation.

Clearly you have not read the research (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) that finds that more than 20% of UFO reports cannot be explained in mundane terms (and it must be admitted, neither have most UFO proponents).

Are you so frustrated that this ridiculous claim was refuted in the moderated UFO thread that you're going to try and spam the rest of the forum with it?

How extraordinary.

Rramjet you say the objects appeared to be a long way off. This oscillation, could it be caused by an atmospheric effect similar to heat haze during the day, (but not heat haze because the ground and air would be cooling at night) thereby making the two objects appear as if they were oscillating from where you were standing? Maybe this was an optical effect caused by some characteristic of the air that night and not caused by the movement of the objects themselves?

If it were atmospheric haze then all four of the UFOs would have been affected, not just the two at the head of the procession.

Anecdotal UFOs are susceptible to all manner of extraordinary effects, Rramjet. That's why some people are so obsessed with them.

It seems that it's not only UFO debunkers who are not very good at determining obvious mundane objects when first seen doesn't it?

(Shrugs) Merely going on the evidence of the “reports” posted by the debunkers in this thread demonstrating they are clearly poor at interpreting obvious mundane objects.

These would be the 'debunkers' that are quite happy to post their experiences of having seen apparently flying objects that they were/are unable to identify, would they?

Why exactly are you using the epithet 'debunkers'? What is it that you believe these folks are trying to debunk?

Wow! a sighting that has had such an impact on someone and yet they didn't 'agree' to it and write it down that night. Well I suppose it's always better to sleep on these things first.

You’re kidding right? The strange thing was that one of the participants simply refused to get up and even have a look to see what we were talking about. I have come across that attitude before as well – and I have to ask – what is it about UFOs that some people will simply not even look when the event is actually occurring (!) – let alone examine the evidence in reports after the event.

It's because stuff floating/drifting/zapping about the sky is so common that most people don't give it a second thought. What I find extraordinary is that anyone would be obsessed with having an explanation for every UFO they ever saw or heard of and insists that anyone not sharing their obsession is acting irrationally.

People see stuff they can't identify in the sky all the time as is evidences by all the "UFO debunkers" telling their stories in this thread.

I have another personal experience:

<snip ordinary anecdote>

Well, pickle me Grandmother and strike me Catholic!

My first thought was "Oh, it's probably an airliner". Their first thought is "Oh, it might be extraterrestrial!" A skeptic does not leap to any conclusion that seems out of the ordinary. The starting assumption is that whatever it is, it probably has a simple explanation. Extraterrestrials visiting earth is not a simple explanation.

As a skeptic myself, I think you are simply overgeneralising. I think it fair to say that everyone who experiences a genuine UFO encounter begins with the assumption that it is something mundane.

Common sense is good like that. It's kind of like having an Auto-Occam.

They quickly run through a list of mundane things that it could be, then are completely surprised and baffled when no mundane explanation can be found. THAT is the natural human reaction arthwollipot. You are simply letting your own biases determine your beliefs.

Even if extraterrestrial intelligent life can, physically, visit earth, I don't think they'll be setting down alongside some poor guy no-one's going to believe, and strutting up and down wearing silly antennae on their heads making "beep beep" noises.

Yeah right – and now your preconceived biases are on naked display for all to see. Silly antennae and going “beep beep”? Oh please…

Project much, Mr Rramjet?

 

[Correa Neto]

Silly antennae and going “beep beep”? Oh please…

Wanna bet one can find among UFO lore a tall tale with this?

And with the OK seal by UFOlogists?

 

[Rramjet]

I'm rather envious-I would have loved to have seen that. There's a Blackbird parked at the Space Center in Huntsville, AL, and I've seen that one up close, but have never seen one fly IRL. Will always wish I had, though.

That is one awesome plane...

Each to their own I guess. However, when I see with my own eyes something that can outmanoeuvre and outperform the Blackbird in every way possible – then I consider that to be a pretty awesome craft - and the Blackbird then becomes just another ho-hum fighter jet in the pantheon of such white elephants that governments around the world have so stupidly spent our money and our children’s legacy on.

However I can fully understand why you would not be envious of people who witness craft that can outperform the Blackbird – considering the Blackbird is supposed to represent some sort of technological pinnacle of human achievement, then witnessing something that could literally run rings around it is sometimes not an easy burden to bear.

No, that's not what the report says. It says that those cases have not been explained in mundane terms - which implies that a mundane explanation is still possible, not that they cannot - which implies that a mundane explanation has been ruled out.

Oh, I think you’ll find they tried their best to assign mundane causes to every case examined. Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it and argue semantics then it is not possible to prove that the (more than) 20% unknowns have no mundane cause. It remains a fact however that such cases simply defy mundane explanation and (according to the report) those cases are statistically, significantly different (on many characteristics) from the reports that were explained as mundane.

Why exactly are you using the epithet 'debunkers'? What is it that you believe these folks are trying to debunk?

Genuine UFO reports of course. I would have thought that what was occurring in this thread was starkly obvious. The UFO debunkers were putting forward allegedly genuine cases only to conclude with “…but wait, it turned out to be mundane after all!” - implying of course that if they - with their allegedly sceptical mindset - could be so hoodwinked, then it is only natural that everyone could be too and if only others had the same (allegedly) sceptical mindset as they – then they too would discover what they saw was also mundane… as I say, glaringly obvious.

I merely pointed out in that regard that the debunkers seemed to be particularly easily hoodwinked by a range of obviously mundane objects…

Way back in August of 69 on an unusually clear night I was looking at the stars and I noticed three stars that formed an equilateral triangle. While looking at them two of these stars moved apart then stopped. I watched them for about 2 minutes more but they did not move. Shortly after that and just a few degrees from the first three I saw another star that moved then stopped. Several years later in the early 70s again on a summer evening before sunset with a high yet overcast cloud ceiling I noticed a orange ball of light that slowly drifted from north to south. It must have been well below the clouds for it did not cast a glow on them. Would love to know what I saw in all three cases.

Perhaps one day we will escape from under the climate of fear, ridicule, abuse and denial (that seems especially obvious in forums such as the JREF) and procure some proper funding and a peer review structure to enable actual research directed toward answering precisely that question.

Apart from these genuine UFO sightings (HERE & HERE), I have another personal experience:

Inside the flat, watching TV. It was a warm evening and (wife) was outside talking to (name deleted), our next door neighbour. Next thing I hear is “(Rramjet! Rramjet)” Come out here. Quickly!” I reluctantly – begrudgingly (I was enjoying the show and the relaxation after dinner) – rose and went out. It was not long after sunset but the sky nearly dark by that time. They were pointing and staring at a large white light (the size of a full moon and as bright as a car headlight) sitting very still in the air toward the north. It looked to be about 30-40 metres off the ground and certainly no more than about 400 metres away. It was just hanging there, doing nothing in particular. There was no sound from it at all and it was not moving at all.

We commented quietly but excitedly on its size, its seeming closeness to us, on the lack of sound, ruling out a helicopter, and the lack of movement and any other lights, ruling out a plane.

Suddenly the light winked out, reappeared some short distance horizontally to the right, although seemingly somewhat smaller in dimension and with what seemed a slight colour change, then it winked out to reappear at the same distance horizontally to the left of its original position, then winked out again and reappeared exactly where it was before. This all happened literally within the blink of an eye. It was so quick that I was unsure if I had seen correctly. Not wanting to prejudice an answer I simply asked the others whether anyone else had seen something occur to the light - and if so what had occurred. Both girls stated what happened to the light - and their statements accorded exactly with what I observed. We marvelled at this for a bit, then the light suddenly began to retreat directly away from us, gathering speed rapidly as it went, until in a very short time indeed it had disappeared completely directly away from us and into the distance.​

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm rather envious-I would have loved to have seen that. There's a Blackbird parked at the Space Center in Huntsville, AL, and I've seen that one up close, but have never seen one fly IRL. Will always wish I had, though.

That is one awesome plane...

Each to their own I guess. However, when I see with my own eyes something that can outmanoeuvre and outperform the Blackbird in every way possible – then I consider that to be a pretty awesome craft - and the Blackbird then becomes just another ho-hum fighter jet in the pantheon of such white elephants that governments around the world have so stupidly spent our money and our children’s legacy on.

Fighter?????????

Do you recall what Ariadne gave to Theseus to find his way out of the Labyrinth?

However I can fully understand why you would not be envious of people who witness craft that can outperform the Blackbird – considering the Blackbird is supposed to represent some sort of technological pinnacle of human achievement, then witnessing something that could literally run rings around it is sometimes not an easy burden to bear.

Like one of these, you mean?

​

Now of course, we all know that you have an anecdote about something that can way outperform the Raptor. It goes without saying, after all, although I have little doubt that you'll say it anyway.

Why exactly are you using the epithet 'debunkers'? What is it that you believe these folks are trying to debunk?

Genuine UFO reports of course.

<snip>

As opposed to all the people who are just pretending to have seen something that they couldn't identify?

There's a lot of that about, is there?

 

[I Ratant]

Fighter?????????

...

.
The SR was a g-limited airplane... 2 g's was pushing what it could do.
Much too fragile to manuver in any meaningful manner.
One of them broke its back doing an enthusiastic pull-up at Farnborough when it left there to fly back to the States.
On a refueling on the way the boom operator said..."I know these things leak, but this is ridiculous!"... the repair would cost much more than the AF cared to pay, so the airplane never flew again, once it got to Palmdale, where it's on display at Blackbird Airpark.

 

[Akhenaten]

.
The SR was a g-limited airplane... 2 g's was pushing what it could do.

I wonder how our resident expert on all things aeronautical could possibly have overlooked this.

Comments, Mr Rramjet?

 

[Rramjet]

.
The SR was a g-limited airplane... 2 g's was pushing what it could do.
Much too fragile to manuver in any meaningful manner.
One of them broke its back doing an enthusiastic pull-up at Farnborough when it left there to fly back to the States.
On a refueling on the way the boom operator said..."I know these things leak, but this is ridiculous!"... the repair would cost much more than the AF cared to pay, so the airplane never flew again, once it got to Palmdale, where it's on display at Blackbird Airpark.

What was it designed and built for? A fighter? A bomber?
Whatever - as I said though - most certainly a "white elephant"...

 

[Akhenaten]

What was it designed and built for? A fighter? A bomber?
Whatever - as I said though - most certainly a "white elephant"...

What do you reckon the 'SR' part of SR-71 might stand for, Rramjet?


And we're supposed to accept that you have expertise in this area, are we?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Precisely. In a number of cases there does seem to be intelligent control - and a good example of such a case is the Tehran case:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(#2)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
(http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

And especially in cases where “beings” are noted in conjunction with UFOs. For example:

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Blue Book case report
(http://www.nicap.org/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

I notice you've taken to leaving out the Delphos case. Did your version of a process of elimination fail you again and you've recognized it this time?

I was so hoping to discuss it with you.

 

[Rramjet]

And I'll repeat my answer from above, in case you missed it - what something classified "as unknown" can be other than "outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge" is...something that is unknown.

Or let me give you an example as you seem to keep making this simple mistake. Let's say that an account was being given of a card trick that someone saw. They had to leave before the end and never saw the person from the audience reveal the card that they had chosen. When telling the story the person could only say that the value of the card that the volunteer had chosen was unknown. Nobody hearing the story could say that the value of the card chosen was anything other than unknown either, unless they had been there at the time it was revealed. This only means that the witness and anyone the witness relates the story to can only say that the card is unknown. It does not mean that the value of the card is outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge, or that with more information that the unknown of the value of the card wouldn't become a known.

We must first note that the value of the card lies within the range of normal values for a present-day pack of 52 cards. Imagine we then see a card that does not correspond to any of those values (it is therefore designated an UNKNOWN card). We then conclude that the observed card lies outside the range of present-day “card” knowledge.

The same thing applies with UFOs. We know the range of mundane things explicable within present-day scientific knowledge. Then we see a UFO that does not correspond to anything within that range (it is therefore designated an UNKNOWN object). We then conclude that the UFO lies outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

Simple, basic, straightforward.