UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

Embarrassing for whom?

Whoosh...

Look at where I highlighted the word “embarrassing” in bold in the quoted statement made by Sparks, a “leading” UFOlogist.

...it was discovered that the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of unknowns...

If I said it once, I'll say it again... if that's not an oxymoron I don't know what is.

 

[ufology]

Since you seem to believe you have a different take on the alien belief than others who have come before you, what exactly is missing from previous examinations of the evidence? Who are these skeptics, "constructive ones who can focus on cases and hypotheses with a critical yet open mind?" Because the 911 Truthers, for example, want an investigation that shows their conspiracy theory is correct, and anything less they will not accept as focused on the case with a critical yet open mind. Is that what you think "ufology" should be, where it should go?

Given all the investigations and research that has been done so far, why has it failed to show the aliens exist? What would you change about the research? Would you change the skeptics to make them more willing to believe anecdotal evidence? Would you make them more willing to accept arguments from incredulity and ignorance? What has gone wrong with all the previous investigations that has caused them to fail to support your belief?

The quotes above pose really good questions. I guess everyone's take is different than everyone else's to some degree. I know I would be highly criticized by some people in paranormal research and accused of taking sides with the enemy. Others prefer to challenge skeptics as though they were the enemy. On the other hand, there are also those of us who believe skepticism is essential in separating fact from fiction and maintaining some semblance of credibility. I and the group I am with ( USI ) are of this latter view.

As for getting skeptics to accept anecdotal evidence, that's not the intent. Rather, I think it would be useful to have a skeptic review anecdotal evidence because they have developed a habit of seeing the flaws in arguments and stories and may be able to point out subtle but important inconsistencies that an "all too ready to believe" person would not.

As for making skeptics "believe" ... forgive me for saying so but I consider myself pretty skeptical and when I'm really pressed as to what I "believe", I'll always say that I don't actually "believe" anything. I might use the word "believe" as a convenience term, but what I'm really saying is that I'm 99.99% sure that whatever it is, is probably the best answer. Skeptics need the freedom to do the same. There is no other way.

Q.Why has all the investigations failed to show aliens exist?
A.Why has all the investigations failed to prove existence itself?

That answer may seem flippant, but it's not. There are always those who want to be guaranteed that they will win. Anyone can simply demand proof and keep saying that it isn't good enough until in the end it becomes impossible to prove the reality of anything ... including reality itself.

However by taking on a reasonable and cooperative approach, I'd like to think that there are skeptics who believe that the pursuit of truth is a shared aspiration and that it doesn't always have to be about who wins the argument.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Q.Why has all the investigations failed to show aliens exist?
A.Why has all the investigations failed to prove existence itself?

That answer may seem flippant, but it's not.

Well of course it is. And it's not an answer. Every effort the alien believers have tried has failed to demonstrate objectively that those aliens exist. Every single one. They're as elusive as gods, unicorns, Bigfoot, Leprechauns, and the Loch Ness Monster. Never, not once, no investigation, research, or examination of purported evidence has objectively resulted in the answer that they exist. The question, which you transparently and dishonestly avoided was why? Why do you and the other alien believers continue to suggest there's some lack in the current methods of investigating, yet you are never able to offer any positive suggestions as to how to repair your problem.

There are always those who want to be guaranteed that they will win. Anyone can simply demand proof and keep saying that it isn't good enough until in the end it becomes impossible to prove the reality of anything ... including reality itself.

However by taking on a reasonable and cooperative approach, I'd like to think that there are skeptics who believe that the pursuit of truth is a shared aspiration and that it doesn't always have to be about who wins the argument.

So other than the dishonest tack of blaming skeptics for your own failure, what suggestion do you have to repair your flawed methodology so you can actually show the world that those aliens you have such faith in actually do exist?

 

[ufology]

Well of course it is. And it's not an answer. Every effort the alien believers have tried has failed to demonstrate objectively that those aliens exist. Every single one. They're as elusive as gods, unicorns, Bigfoot, Leprechauns, and the Loch Ness Monster. Never, not once, no investigation, research, or examination of purported evidence has objectively resulted in the answer that they exist. The question, which you transparently and dishonestly avoided was why? Why do you and the other alien believers continue to suggest there's some lack in the current methods of investigating, yet you are never able to offer any positive suggestions as to how to repair your problem.




So other than the dishonest tack of blaming skeptics for your own failure, what suggestion do you have to repair your flawed methodology so you can actually show the world that those aliens you have such faith in actually do exist?

And here I thought we were making progress.

j.r.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

One problem for UFOlogists is that every misunderstood incident in the sky need not be investigated.

People see all sorts of things in the sky, it's a busy place. If a team of scientists were deployed every time someone saw something they didn't understand, it would be a strange use of resources.
So we end up with a lot of events that are not quite explained.
There is no reason to believe that, if they were explained, the answer should contain paranormal or extra-terrestrial phenomena.

Seems to me, unless you're looking for ET's in the first place, all you're really doing is bugging scientists and military personel going "why won't you explain to me everything I don't understand?".
Leave them alone and watch Star Trek, pretending that there are aliens, like the rest of us.
I won't run a poll, but I'm pretty sure every skeptic in the world would be absolutely ecstatic about scientific findings confirming the existence of ET's.

 

[wardenclyffe]

ufology,

Perhaps there's another way of looking at the problem of "anyone can simply demand proof and keep saying that it isn't good enough until in the end it becomes impossible to prove the reality of anything."

I agree that this could definitely be a problem. It's commonly referred to as "moving the goalposts," although the term is usually used by skeptics against paranormal claimants who keep changing their claims when controls are put into tests of their powers.

The term could just as easily be used against skeptics which is why in challenges like JREF's Million Dollar Challenge or the IIG's $50K Challenge or the Australian Skeptics $100K Challenge, the protocol must be agreed to by both sides so neither the skeptics nor the claimants can move the goalposts.

In the case of UFOs, there are no mutually agreed upon goalposts. The fact that you started this thread seems to indicate that you are looking for a concrete way to study the UFO experience. Do you have any ideas? What should the parameters be?

As you consider that, you need to ask yourself if you believe in Bigfoot. If not, why? What evidence would convince you? How is the evidence of UFOs different than the evidence of Bigfoot? I'm talking about qualitative difference, not quantitative. There will be a greater volume of UFO sightings than Bigfoot sightings. This is because Bigfoot "lives" in the Pacific Northwest. Yes, there've been sightings elsewhere, but does anyone really think Bigfoot lives in New Jersey? UFOs can be sighted anywhere in any state in any country, at sea, in the air, in any building with windows. So I will grant you that there are many more UFO sightings than Bigfoot sightings, but how are the nature of the sightings different and what kind of evidence would make you as interested in Bigfoot as you are in UFOs?

Thanks,
Ward

 

[wollery]

Embarrassing for whom? A few tenths of a percent here or there depending on who classifies some few contentious cases one way or other... so what? The official AF statistic is around 5% and a few tenths either way is relatively insignificant. However, when we come to an official scientific and targeted study of cases (The Battelle Study - http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf), then we DO have a significant difference. It was then discovered that fully 21.5% of cases could not be explained in terms of the entire knowledge base of the "Free World"... and more, it was discovered that the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of unknowns (with the most reliable reports having 33% unknown)!

I've highlighted the relevant sections of this statement. Do you not understand the deception in claiming that "fully 21.5% of cases could not be explained" when you are talking about results from a "targeted study"?

21.5% of Blue Book cases were unexplained, but they only considered certain cases, and that percentage of unexplained cases drops significantly if you consider all cases. What Blue Book did was to bias the input sample, which skewed the statistics.

It's only 21.5% of cases that they considered worth studying, which is not "fully 21.5% of cases".

 

[TjW]

Oh, so then you make the direct leap from no plausible mundane explanation to ET? I was unaware that you knew everything there was to know about the universe. My apologies. Perhaps then you can tell what I am thinking right now..?

Me? Certainly not. These are trained investigators.
If one can't reasonably make the jump from having exhaustively eliminated something to alien (or "alien", if you like -- I'm sure some crimes within the U.S. are committed by aliens, either legal or illegal), why even bring it up?

 

[Astrophotographer]

As this is still going around in circles, I will snip that which is me repeating myself.

No matter how you spin it, the preponderance of sightings were from Canada, through Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania- rather than Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Canada – suggesting a northwest to southeast trajectory rather than a southwest to northeast trajectory. .

Feel free to list all the witnesses that support your trajectory? Give us exact locations and actual azimuths. When you have that data, then you might have an argument. Meanwhile, you are just ignoring the work of others who actually investigated the fireball in favor of what you want to believe.

Also, have a closer look at the listed coordinates and their alleged locations on the map….

Hmmm…I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment. The co-ordinates work just fine on Google earth and are consistent with the drawing in the paper (with the exception of the label A and B being switched). The co-ordinates listed by VDC and Krause are 82 deg 53’6” (53.1’) and 42 deg 5’ 6” (5.1’) for one point. The other point is at 82 deg 56’24” (56.4’) and 42 deg 2’ and 0” (2.0’). I see no significant difference between that and what is shown on the map in the paper. I wonder if others get the same location as I am. Perhaps you could elaborate or maybe you made a mistake because you go on to say this:

Ummm …no … Point A is above the southern end of Lake Erie….

I guess you might be technically correct in that when you are located on the southern shores of Ontario, you are “ABOVE the southern end of Lake Erie” but I find that very imprecise. The southern shore of Lake Erie is below latitude 41.6 degrees. Pelee island (in the middle of Lake Erie) on Google earth is at about a latitude 41 degree 46 ‘30”. These are all well below the lowest latitude listed by VDC and Krause (above 42 degrees latitude). The longitudes also seem consistent since Detroit is at about 83 deg 3’, which is just west of the longitudes given. Since you did not present your work, I can only assume that you have gotten the latitudes wrong in your plots somehow, which is why you seem to claim there is a significant error in their co-ordinates when there appears to be none.

You cannot have it both ways AstroP. On the one hand you are claiming that observers have no way of determining trajectory direction (or that they are likely to be in error when they do) and yet on the other you now claim that an observation “to the north” can provide us with a directional trajectory….

This is because you fail to understand the concept of determining the trajectory from multiple observations. A single observer can not determine true trajectory direction of a fireball as I have stated previously. However, multiple observers combined can determine a location of the beginning and end of a fireball’s trajectory. This allows a reasonable determination of direction. The more observers, the more likely the trajectory is going to be reasonably accurate. If one finds a data point that disagrees with all these observers, then it is likely that data point is faulty. This is usually due to the witness losing his bearings/directions and making an errant observation. This is usually resolved when the investigators go to the location of the sighting with the observer (one can read about a good example of this in regards to Dr. Francis Drakes commentary about a fireball investigation in the book “UFOs: A scientific debate”. His paper was “The ability of eyewitnesses”). For instance viewing from an airplane that is preparing to land, is usually not what one would consider a stable platform as the plane’s direction will shift as it attempts to get into the proper approach. A witness may think he is looking east and instead maybe looking south, north, or west. We have no way of knowing but it is entirely plausible. His observations are suspect because all the other data (witness observations) points in a completely different direction.

The military sent a team to Acme to investigate! All those Blue Book memos indicate Acme… besides, there were reports from other locations of something falling to the ground, so why ignore those others to send the team to Acme if they were not “convinced” that Acme was the location?

Perhaps it was noticed and required a team because there was quite the media concern on that location. Nobody knew what might be there and it was turning into a media circus so Quintanilla probably figured it would be necessary to allocate resources. In the other locations, people claimed to already have recovered materials. In that case, it would just be a matter of requesting that the AF look at said materials just like they did with the gentleman who found the strips of foil.

It was reported that they found nothing…

You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that this report is inaccurate even though you like to imply it constantly.

If the vapour trail is of constant dimension over its length, then it would be difficult to determine direction after the event. If however it was not constant, then one would have to make an assessment of whether the “entry point” had dispersed to a greater extent that the terminal end - or whether the entry point was much closer than the terminal point (resulting the in perception of different dimension), or whether the terminal burst of the object resulted in a thicker trail at the terminal end – all these would be a matter of assessment on the ground at the time, but each would supply a direction - where a constant sized trail would not.

You misunderstand. What I am describing is the actual trail has to be the same physical size/width (i.e. so many meters across) over the entire length for this to work. That way any changes in angular size (which is what you seem to be fixated upon) can be used to determine direction. However, meteor debris trails are not the same physical size across since the amount of debris left behind varies during the meteors passage. It is probable that towards the end of the trail there would be less debris (until the terminal burst) as the size of the meteoroid got smaller and left behind less material. One can not make an accurate assessment of direction using this methodology without first establishing that the debris trail was the same physical width along its entire length.

When I was about 16, I was walking one night along the ridge of a mountain when I heard an incredibly loud hissing sound. Something large whizzed directly over my head and gave me the impression that it passed over extraordinarily close to me. I ducked instinctively, but of course it was long gone before I even did so. As I stood up I saw a bright flash behind the clouds some miles distant over the peak of another range. Whatever it was had come in from over the sea (obviously slower than the speed of sound or I would have heard a sonic boom?), but still very fast and it must have travelled horizontally (for it to miss my ridge and the preceding ridges, but also not to crash into the mountains before its terminal point) for many tens of miles (before and after I observed it). It was all over in a matter of seconds. Incredibly fast. Horizontal flight. No sonic boom… what gives?

We can assume you are describing a fireball event in this example. Not all meteors/fireballs create sonic booms. In fact, I have never actually heard a sonic boom from any fireball I have ever observed. I have seen dozens of fireballs that have cast shadows on the ground but no real sonic booms. However, in this case, we know the fireball did produce a sonic event so loud that it registered on seismographs. Again, the lack of any recordings from Cleveland or Penn State indicates this sonic event occurred nearer to Detroit and not near Kecksburg or on the southern shores of Lake Erie.

Lets confine ourselves to the reports and testimony of witnesses who were actually there shall we…

Yes let’s do that. Are you stating the property owners were not present that night? Are you stating the actual fire chief was not present? However, you are going to accept the word of people who claimed they were present simply because they tell you the story you want to hear? Is there any evidence that Betters, Romansky, and Bulebush (just to name a few) were even present that night?

Interestingly, apart from Gatty and Murphy, there were other reporters on the scene that night.

And not one of these individuals reported anything unusual that night in 1965. Were they incompetent or was it they saw nothing unusual? None of them have a single photograph of the troops or the equipment that was supposedly present. These stories did not surface until at least a decade later at the prompting of UFO investigators. They are unverifiable rumors.

What “massive convoy”? The contention is merely that military personnel and equipment were dispatched to the area and that something was recovered. I have simply noted that there were military bases within range that could have supplied the resources. Nothing more, nothing less. .

To transport the men and material would require some support. You are talking about 50-100 men that needed to be transported using vehicles such as trucks (about 3-6 for the troops) and jeeps (the officers and techs) along with the flatbed and lifting device/crane. Oh yeah, the trucks need fuel if they are going to go for distances over about 400 miles (and that is just for the trucks, the tractor had a lower range). The prime military mover for a flatbed was the M123. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to normally operate on US roads without permission (see http://www.liberatedmanuals.com/TM-55-2320-206-20-1.pdf). No documentation exists for that permission but such a vehicle would not go unnoticed as it moved on the roads outside Kecksburg.
You need a tanker or two to support the operation (you can’t just fill up at a gas station as there were requirements on the type of fuel). After all, it would be awful for your flatbed and tractor with the precious acorn to run out of gas on their way to the super secret location. BTW, the M123 runs at a max speed of about 43 mph (probably slower with a trailer). This makes the entire convoy required to run at the pace set by the slowest vehicle (you don’t want the tractor/trailer to get lost do you?). I can imagine the traffic jam on the Pennsylvania turnpike caused by this.
All of these are significant considerations that need to be made when promoting the military force scenario. Not surprisingly, it is not even considered. As I stated, you need to wave a magic wand for the troops to appear and disappear. It is just not physically possible to have the men and material described in the Kecksburg myth to show up and leave without being noticed/mentioned by a whole bunch of people that day (not 15 years later) in and outside Kecksburg

Obviously if someone points a gun at you and tells you to go away then naturally you will feel threatened. It is just the way you phrase things that lends them an air of hyperbole (as in “…massive military force where guns are drawn and lives threatened”). You make it sound like an invading army, whereas what actually occurred – according to the eyewitnesses – was a cordon was set up and people who approached too closely were warned off. If they felt threatened, they could simply walk away – which of course they did.

You were the one (as well as all these other witnesses) that proclaimed that the military was present in force. Exactly how many soldiers do you think it took to carry off this operation? IMO, anything over a squad (10-12 soldiers) is considered a massive military force. As noted the witnesses did state they drew their weapons. Again, I must point out that such an act is illegal unless there is authorization from somebody (i.e. the use of deadly force is authorized in writing). No such documentation exists.

 

[Rramjet]

I've highlighted the relevant sections of this statement. Do you not understand the deception in claiming that "fully 21.5% of cases could not be explained" when you are talking about results from a "targeted study"?

The Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) determined that fully 21.5% of the cases it examined were Unknown (see p. 24 for a complete breakdown of the findings).

21.5% of Blue Book cases were unexplained, but they only considered certain cases, and that percentage of unexplained cases drops significantly if you consider all cases. What Blue Book did was to bias the input sample, which skewed the statistics.

The Battelle Study was published in 1955. It examined data for the time period 1947 -1952. Blue Book itself continued to take sighting reports until about 1965, when it was closed. Obviously the Battelle Institute could not study cases that were received after it began analysing the data.

It's only 21.5% of cases that they considered worth studying, which is not "fully 21.5% of cases".

The criteria for selecting the cases it did are well described in the study. For example:

”Originally, the problem involved the preparation and analysis of about 1,300 reports accumulated by the Air Force between 1947 and the end of March, 1952. During the course of the work, the number of reports submitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the unprecedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a preliminary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports.” (p. 2)​

”Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4, 000 reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The majority were received through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably reliable sources. Sightings made between June, 1947, and December, 1952, were considered for this study. Sightings alleged to have occurred prior to 1947 were not considered, since they were not reported to official sources until after public interest in "flying saucers" had been stimulated by the popular press.” (p. 3)​

Finally, if we consider the study to have produced valid results – and there is no reason why we would not – then that finding may be generalised over subsequently received reports – and indeed, to all reports. That is the nature of valid scientific studies – indeed to be valid they must be generalisable to the broader set of similar data from which the study data constitutes a representative sample.

 

[Rramjet]

You make some very good points wardenclyffe.

Perhaps there's another way of looking at the problem of "anyone can simply demand proof and keep saying that it isn't good enough until in the end it becomes impossible to prove the reality of anything."

I agree that this could definitely be a problem. It's commonly referred to as "moving the goalposts," although the term is usually used by skeptics against paranormal claimants who keep changing their claims when controls are put into tests of their powers.

Indeed, the evidence (for or against) should be examined on its merits. That is there should be no a priori prejudice against the evidence merely because someone believes that the evidence is somehow inadequate. Too often sceptics simply dismiss evidence out-of-hand on that basis, without ever analysing the evidence to determine what it might actually be telling us. Sceptics will tell you “Oh, that’s merely anecdotal, witnesses can be in error, therefore we can dismiss such evidence out of hand.” In doing so however they never get around to assessing the reliability of such evidence. Just because eyewitnesses can be mistaken, does not mean that they are mistaken in a particular instance.

The term could just as easily be used against skeptics which is why in challenges like JREF's Million Dollar Challenge or the IIG's $50K Challenge or the Australian Skeptics $100K Challenge, the protocol must be agreed to by both sides so neither the skeptics nor the claimants can move the goalposts.

I would argue that merely sitting back and saying “Here is a million dollars if you can demonstrate to my satisfaction…” will never produce results. If history has taught us anything it is that scientific breakthroughs have most often taken a concerted program of peer-reviewed research, conducted over lengthy time periods (decades if not centuries), to produce worthwhile results. Why should anyone expect it to be different in researching the paranormal?

What is needed is a discipline – a properly constituted, peer-reviewed program of research. Randi, with his million dollars, has simply not recognised that this is what it takes to conduct science – if he truly wanted answers, then he would use that money to set up a research foundation. Instead he comes at the problem from a prejudiced mind-set – it cannot be, therefore it isn’t. Once again, science has never produced results working from such a base.

In the case of UFOs, there are no mutually agreed upon goalposts. The fact that you started this thread seems to indicate that you are looking for a concrete way to study the UFO experience. Do you have any ideas? What should the parameters be?

I cannot speak for ufology, so it would be interesting to hear his ideas on this matter. He seems to want to tap into the sceptical mindset so that it may be productively applied to the problem of researching the paranormal – which is of course precisely what is needed in scientific endeavours.

As you consider that, you need to ask yourself if you believe in Bigfoot. If not, why? What evidence would convince you? How is the evidence of UFOs different than the evidence of Bigfoot? I'm talking about qualitative difference, not quantitative. There will be a greater volume of UFO sightings than Bigfoot sightings. This is because Bigfoot "lives" in the Pacific Northwest. Yes, there've been sightings elsewhere, but does anyone really think Bigfoot lives in New Jersey? UFOs can be sighted anywhere in any state in any country, at sea, in the air, in any building with windows. So I will grant you that there are many more UFO sightings than Bigfoot sightings, but how are the nature of the sightings different and what kind of evidence would make you as interested in Bigfoot as you are in UFOs?

Speaking for myself (I am sure ufology may have other and perhaps even better ideas than my own), when it comes to Bigfoot (or claims of the paranormal in general) I keep an open mind. The whole universe is such a preposterous thing that for us to suppose we have “reality” absolutely pinned down in our own little corner of it would seem arrogant and presumptuous at the very least. If history has shown us anything it is that when we are most sure that we have things “pinned down”, we are most often incorrect.

As for the evidence required: Well, we have to start with what we have and design experimental protocols that would explore the implications of that evidence. For example, considering UFOs, we have multiple eyewitness, radar, photographs and film, and physical trace evidence – and that is most definitely a level of evidence that simply does not exist for most other paranormal phenomena. Given that level of evidence it might be expedient to begin our explorations of the paranormal with UFOs – and who knows, that might just provide us with insights into other aspects of the paranormal. But we will never know unless we undertake the hard research yards.

 

[GeeMack]

Given that level of evidence it might be expedient to begin our explorations of the paranormal with UFOs – and who knows, that might just provide us with insights into other aspects of the paranormal. But we will never know unless we undertake the hard research yards.

But just as one example, the UFO/alien believers right here in these JREF forums have done such a lousy job of assembling the "evidence" that they're apparently unable to support their belief. I asked ufology what it is about that alleged research that is so poorly done that it fails every time. His/her response? Ignorance. So other than blaming scientists and skeptics for the UFOlien believers' continuous failures, how should those believers change their poor approach to the investigation? What is it about their current method, the cherry picking, lying, arguments from incredulity, disdain for legitimate science, ignorance, and dishonest effort to deflect the burden of proof, why does that strategy pretty much always fail? What should be changed to improve the chances of success?

 

[wardenclyffe]

I would argue that merely sitting back and saying “Here is a million dollars if you can demonstrate to my satisfaction…” will never produce results. If history has taught us anything it is that scientific breakthroughs have most often taken a concerted program of peer-reviewed research, conducted over lengthy time periods (decades if not centuries), to produce worthwhile results. Why should anyone expect it to be different in researching the paranormal?

Initially, I would suggest that no one is sitting back saying, “Here is a million dollars if you can demonstrate to my satisfaction…” All testing protocols are developed by and agreed to by both the testing organization and the claimant. These are usually claims that would require no painstaking research. Someone can either really read minds or they cannot. They always claim a great success rate, but then they fail in controlled tests.

What is needed is a discipline – a properly constituted, peer-reviewed program of research. Randi, with his million dollars, has simply not recognised that this is what it takes to conduct science – if he truly wanted answers, then he would use that money to set up a research foundation. Instead he comes at the problem from a prejudiced mind-set – it cannot be, therefore it isn’t. Once again, science has never produced results working from such a base.

This is incorrect. In the field of aviation, cash prizes have inspired many advances in the science of aviation. Such prizes can be very inspirational from early on when Louis Blériot won the Daily Mail's £1000 prize by flying the English Channel to Lindberg winning the $25,000 Orteig Prize for flying the Atlantic to the $10,000,000 X-Prize won by Burt Rutan for building a successful space ship. There are probably examples outside of aviation, but this is just one example of prizes being used very successfully to inspire scientific and technological breakthroughs.

I suppose the JREF or the IIG or The Australian Skeptics could fund expeditions into the wilds of the Pacific Northwest, but many TV productions companies have and continue to do so already, with no real results. Those TV production companies have more money than all the Skeptical groups combined and they still can't find anything. All they want is ratings. Can you imagine what kind of ratings they'd get if they actually found something? The same can be said for ghost hunting and UFO shows as well.

Many, many people claim that they can reproduce paranormal phenomena on a reliable basis. It is not out of order for Randi (or anyone else) to ask them to prove it.

Ward

 

[RoboTimbo]

As for the evidence required: Well, we have to start with what we have and design experimental protocols that would explore the implications of that evidence. For example, considering UFOs, we have multiple eyewitness, radar, photographs and film, and physical trace evidence – and that is most definitely a level of evidence that simply does not exist for most other paranormal phenomena. Given that level of evidence it might be expedient to begin our explorations of the paranormal with UFOs – and who knows, that might just provide us with insights into other aspects of the paranormal. But we will never know unless we undertake the hard research yards.

You forgot FLIR again. Why do you keep forgetting FLIR? LOL.

Maybe you should try for an alien raygun, alien body, or alien spaceship instead of anecdotes.

 

[wollery]

The Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) determined that fully 21.5% of the cases it examined were Unknown (see p. 24 for a complete breakdown of the findings).


The Battelle Study was published in 1955. It examined data for the time period 1947 -1952. Blue Book itself continued to take sighting reports until about 1965, when it was closed. Obviously the Battelle Institute could not study cases that were received after it began analysing the data.


The criteria for selecting the cases it did are well described in the study. For example:

”Originally, the problem involved the preparation and analysis of about 1,300 reports accumulated by the Air Force between 1947 and the end of March, 1952. During the course of the work, the number of reports submitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the unprecedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a preliminary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports.” (p. 2)​

”Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4, 000 reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The majority were received through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably reliable sources. Sightings made between June, 1947, and December, 1952, were considered for this study. Sightings alleged to have occurred prior to 1947 were not considered, since they were not reported to official sources until after public interest in "flying saucers" had been stimulated by the popular press.” (p. 3)​

Finally, if we consider the study to have produced valid results – and there is no reason why we would not – then that finding may be generalised over subsequently received reports – and indeed, to all reports. That is the nature of valid scientific studies – indeed to be valid they must be generalisable to the broader set of similar data from which the study data constitutes a representative sample.

What part of this aren't you getting?

The cases were preselected. That introduces bias.

Quote the numbers all you want, that fact won't change.

 

[Rramjet]

Feel free to list all the witnesses that support your trajectory? Give us exact locations and actual azimuths. When you have that data, then you might have an argument. Meanwhile, you are just ignoring the work of others who actually investigated the fireball in favor of what you want to believe.

The only person for whom the precise data you request is available is for Campine, C&K’s star witness, who according to them was “…best qualified to judge…” (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967JRASC..61..184C/0000184.000.html p. 189) and who stated that “…the flash travelled to the east on a course estimated about 110 degrees…” (http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693545) (note C&K calculates a trajectory of N 39 E). So the only witness for whom we do have such data as you request - actually refutes your contentions… we also get fairly close with the Canadian Airlines passenger, who ten minutes flying time south of Pittsburgh, looked east from the plane window and saw the object “going into a steep 70 degree dive” (again refuting C&K)…

Of course if you have any such data (that you request of me above) for other witnesses - data that might actually support your own argument (as my witnesses support my argument above), then please feel free to present it…

…and of course if the “work of others” is flawed, then you don’t have an argument at all.

The co-ordinates work just fine on Google earth and are consistent with the drawing in the paper (with the exception of the label A and B being switched).

Okay, the A and B location coordinates are basically correct but they had Campine about a mile out of his stated location and they reversed the A and B labels - one can only hope they did not do that in their calculations… Perhaps that is why they ended up in opposition to Campine himself…?

This is because you fail to understand the concept of determining the trajectory from multiple observations.

Oh, I see, you just ignore those observations that do not conform to or confirm your hypothesis?

A single observer can not determine true trajectory direction of a fireball as I have stated previously.

Perhaps you have never played baseball or cricket or ice hockey or badminton or table tennis …a single observer has plenty of information they can use to understand the direction of fast moving, flying objects. The direction of a fireball is pretty basic in comparison…

However, multiple observers combined can determine a location of the beginning and end of a fireball’s trajectory. (…)The more observers, the more likely the trajectory is going to be reasonably accurate.

AstroP! If (according to you) no single observer can tell which direction something is travelling, then collating a whole group of erroneous trajectory estimates will not (can not and never will) amount to an accurate estimate! (I cannot belief you of all people are even attempting to mount this kind of argument… it just goes to show the lengths that some will go to I guess…)

”The military sent a team to Acme to investigate! All those Blue Book memos indicate Acme… besides, there were reports from other locations of something falling to the ground, so why ignore those others to send the team to Acme if they were not “convinced” that Acme was the location?

Perhaps it was noticed and required a team because there was quite the media concern on that location. Nobody knew what might be there and it was turning into a media circus so Quintanilla probably figured it would be necessary to allocate resources. In the other locations, people claimed to already have recovered materials. In that case, it would just be a matter of requesting that the AF look at said materials just like they did with the gentleman who found the strips of foil.

The question is why were so many people (private and official) converging and focussing on the Kecksburg/Acme area? After all, if there were things coming down in other places, why not converge on those other places as well. Moreover, if, as you suggest, no-one actually saw anything come down in the area - and critically - no-one actually reported anything as coming down in the area, then how come all the activity and focus on that area?

It was reported that they found nothing…

You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that this report is inaccurate even though you like to imply it constantly.

I am merely stating the fact. You state as FACT that nothing was found. I am merely pointing out that, given eyewitness reports refuting that report, then that report is disputed.

When I was about 16, I was walking one night along the ridge of a mountain when I heard an incredibly loud hissing sound. Something large whizzed directly over my head and gave me the impression that it passed over extraordinarily close to me. I ducked instinctively, but of course it was long gone before I even did so. As I stood up I saw a bright flash behind the clouds some miles distant over the peak of another range. Whatever it was had come in from over the sea (obviously slower than the speed of sound or I would have heard a sonic boom?), but still very fast and it must have travelled horizontally (for it to miss my ridge and the preceding ridges, but also not to crash into the mountains before its terminal point) for many tens of miles (before and after I observed it). It was all over in a matter of seconds. Incredibly fast. Horizontal flight. No sonic boom… what gives?

We can assume you are describing a fireball event in this example. Not all meteors/fireballs create sonic booms. In fact, I have never actually heard a sonic boom from any fireball I have ever observed. I have seen dozens of fireballs that have cast shadows on the ground but no real sonic booms. However, in this case, we know the fireball did produce a sonic event so loud that it registered on seismographs. Again, the lack of any recordings from Cleveland or Penn State indicates this sonic event occurred nearer to Detroit and not near Kecksburg or on the southern shores of Lake Erie.

Sorry …forgot to mention it was a very dark night and there was no “fireball”, just the incredibly loud hissing sound, approaching and receding so fast that it covered tens of miles in horizontal flight a mere two or three seconds (Apologies – but when you are so familiar with your own experience you tend to forget the level of detail that must be gone into to effectively inform others – interestingly this is what often occurs in eyewitness recounting of events – such details will often “emerge” only in the fullness of time and upon further questing… and of course it is also the case that seeing such things the debunkers will leap all over that with alacrity to cry foul – but it is really just a natural consequence of recounting experience)

But are you admitting that sonic booms are not always heard (for surely they must be created)? And what does that do to your contention about seismic data not recorded at other places?

Yes let’s do that. Are you stating the property owners were not present that night? Are you stating the actual fire chief was not present?

You stated it yourself that the Kalps were renting - and of course the “real” owners (who you previously named as denying the event) were simply not present. Who, in your opinion, was “the actual fire chief” on the ground at the time?

However, you are going to accept the word of people who claimed they were present simply because they tell you the story you want to hear? Is there any evidence that Betters, Romansky, and Bulebush (just to name a few) were even present that night?

This is merely your “eyewitnesses are lying” argument in yet another guise! Do you have any reason to disbelieve all the eyewitnesses - other than it was “officially” reported that nothing was found?

And not one of these individuals reported anything unusual that night in 1965. Were they incompetent or was it they saw nothing unusual?

That’s simply untrue! There were lots of reports of unusual activity from that night – there were no reports of anything being found is all.

None of them have a single photograph of the troops or the equipment that was supposedly present.

Yet we know (and you accept) there were at least State Troopers and Fire Police cordons and equipment and at least three military personnel – and no photos of them either? And what about all the “civilians” flooding into the area causing traffic jams? …Perhaps it is simply the case that there were photos - but they were just not published for whatever reason.

These stories did not surface until at least a decade later at the prompting of UFO investigators. They are unverifiable rumors.

This is your “eyewitnesses are mistaken/lying” argument in yet another guise! Do you have any reason to disbelieve all the eyewitnesses - other than it was “officially” reported that nothing was found?

What “massive convoy”? The contention is merely that military personnel and equipment were dispatched to the area and that something was recovered. I have simply noted that there were military bases within range that could have supplied the resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

To transport the men and material would require some support. You are talking about 50-100 men that needed to be transported using vehicles such as trucks (about 3-6 for the troops) and jeeps (the officers and techs) along with the flatbed and lifting device/crane. Oh yeah, the trucks need fuel if they are going to go for distances over about 400 miles (and that is just for the trucks, the tractor had a lower range). The prime military mover for a flatbed was the M123. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to normally operate on US roads without permission (see http://www.liberatedmanuals.com/TM-55-2320-206-20-1.pdf). No documentation exists for that permission but such a vehicle would not go unnoticed as it moved on the roads outside Kecksburg.
You need a tanker or two to support the operation (you can’t just fill up at a gas station as there were requirements on the type of fuel). After all, it would be awful for your flatbed and tractor with the precious acorn to run out of gas on their way to the super secret location. BTW, the M123 runs at a max speed of about 43 mph (probably slower with a trailer). This makes the entire convoy required to run at the pace set by the slowest vehicle (you don’t want the tractor/trailer to get lost do you?). I can imagine the traffic jam on the Pennsylvania turnpike caused by this.
All of these are significant considerations that need to be made when promoting the military force scenario. Not surprisingly, it is not even considered. As I stated, you need to wave a magic wand for the troops to appear and disappear. It is just not physically possible to have the men and material described in the Kecksburg myth to show up and leave without being noticed/mentioned by a whole bunch of people that day (not 15 years later) in and outside Kecksburg

For one who is interested in FACTS, you seem you be doing an awful lot of speculating there AstroP… The contention is merely that military personnel and equipment were dispatched to the area and that something was recovered. I have simply noted that there were military bases within range that could have supplied the resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

You were the one (as well as all these other witnesses) that proclaimed that the military was present in force. Exactly how many soldiers do you think it took to carry off this operation? IMO, anything over a squad (10-12 soldiers) is considered a massive military force.

Obviously, if according to you, anything over “10-12 soldiers” is considered a “massive military force”…then me indicating that, according to the eyewitnesses, the military was there in force does not seem to me to be overstating or over-reaching.

As noted the witnesses did state they drew their weapons. Again, I must point out that such an act is illegal unless there is authorization from somebody (i.e. the use of deadly force is authorized in writing). No such documentation exists.

One could say we don’t know about the existence of any such documentation… or, one could even say that no such documentation has been released… but one cannot say that one knows that such documentation categorically does not exist.

I believe your thinking here is unfortunately an example of the type of thinking that pervades the UFO debunker mentality – that of drawing unfounded or unwarranted conclusions based on little no evidence. It is as if the mere belief that something is true confers veracity in that very same belief.

 

[wollery]

You still haven't responded to this post of mine regarding the paper by C&K.

There is no evidence that the White Sands scientists did not account for error margins. All we have is a summary report which states their findings in point form (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html). For anyone wanting the analytical detail concerning how they arrived at their conclusions, including an error analysis, one would need to refer back to the full report. It is simply incomprehensible that any scientist conducting a measurement analysis would not also include an assessment of measurement error. Clearly C&K did not do that – and they should have - but there is absolutely no evidence that the White Sands scientists did not. Indeed, given their job requirements, that of computing test rocket trajectories, for them not to conduct error analyses would be a dereliction of duty and would have seen them out of the job long before they conducted the analysis in question.

It's incomprehensible that any scientist would fail to do it, and yet here we are talking about scientists not doing it.

You can't have it both ways, either scientists do fail to conduct proper error analyses, or they don't. If they do (as you argue C&K do) then you cannot also argue that it is inconceivable that the White Sands scientists certainly would have performed such a calculation, and if you argue that scientists always perform these calculations then we must assume that "C&K" did perform a proper error analysis, but for some reason it was deemed unnecessary for the final paper.

You argued some pages back that no reputable journal would knowingly publish a paper without a proper error analysis, and yet here we have a paper, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, so we must assume, per your argument, that such an analysis was done, but was either insignificant or irrelevant and was therefore removed for the sake of brevity and / or clarity.

Unless of course you were simply making pronouncements about what scientists and journals would do with no actual knowledge or supporting evidence for your assertions. In which case we can dismiss your unsubstantiated claims, and everyone reading can make what they will of you making such demonstrably erroneous claims.

Did C&K fail to perform an appropriate error analysis?

If so then that is proof that scientists don't always perform appropriate analyses, and your pronouncement that the scientists in the White Sands case most certainly would have because scientists always perform such calculations is unfounded.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that the White Sands scientists would have performed an error analysis, because scientists do always perform such analyses then you cannot argue that C&K didn't perform one, there must be another reason why it isn't included in the final paper.

Of course, both scenarios are problematic for you, because, according to you, no reputable peer-reviewed journal would publish a paper without such an error analysis, and yet here is a paper without one. Do you have any reasonable explanation that doen't undermine your previous assertions?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Snipped to stop repeating myself. The argument against the trajectory computed by VDC and Krause has not been refuted. You can shout it all you want but that does not make it true.

Perhaps you have never played baseball or cricket or ice hockey or badminton or table tennis …a single observer has plenty of information they can use to understand the direction of fast moving, flying objects. The direction of a fireball is pretty basic in comparison….

In those examples, the size of the object is known and it is easy to determine its trajectory. You also have binocular vision when an object is close and even then it does not work so easily. Have you ever see an outfield misjudge where the ball will land in a baseball game? In the case of a fireball, we don’t know the physical size of the debris trail/fireball and it is not a uniform size as it changes size through the atmosphere or as it leaves less material. This is why people always misjudge where a fireball supposedly lands. They think it was just beyond the trees or it was flying just overhead when the distances were far greater. You seem to be missing this key point.

The question is why were so many people (private and official) converging and focussing on the Kecksburg/Acme area? After all, if there were things coming down in other places, why not converge on those other places as well. Moreover, if, as you suggest, no-one actually saw anything come down in the area - and critically - no-one actually reported anything as coming down in the area, then how come all the activity and focus on that area?

It was big news in an area with a small population. Once it got announced by the local media, all sorts of people were interested. The military was interested enough to send a team of radar techs/operators based on the media reports but nothing more than that. Once they reported nothing was found it was over as far as the AF was concerned.

The other locations in Ohio did not get the immediate media coverage that was received in Kecksburg. They were strictly a print story but Kecksburg had the luxury of having coverage by local radio and, according to Gordon, some updates being made on Pittsburgh TV as well. That tends to get everyone’s attention.

I am merely stating the fact. You state as FACT that nothing was found. I am merely pointing out that, given eyewitness reports refuting that report, then that report is disputed.

There are no eyewitness reports from 1965 that state something was definitely found. In fact, most everything you find in the media reports is that “nothing” was ever found. They suspected something was there but when it was all said and done, they found nothing.

But are you admitting that sonic booms are not always heard (for surely they must be created)? And what does that do to your contention about seismic data not recorded at other places?

In your case there was no sonic boom. However, in this case, we know there was one. The only reason it could not be heard in one place but heard in another was because of distance. The further you are from the epicenter of the event, the less likely you are to feel its effects. The seismograph near Detroit registered the event. The seismographs at Cleveland and Penn state did not. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the seismic event occurred near Detroit and not in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

You stated it yourself that the Kalps were renting - and of course the “real” owners (who you previously named as denying the event) were simply not present. Who, in your opinion, was “the actual fire chief” on the ground at the time?

That was the Hayes family who was renting property on the Hilland farm. Mrs. Kalp was near Acme. The real owners of the various properties, I previously listed. The Millers owned the property bordering the ravine and road where the state police set up their relay post to talk to the barracks. The Kovacina’s deny anything landed on their property and they owned the land where the acorn supposedly hit.

Ed Myers (not Bitner) was the actual 1965 fire chief according to Bob Young.

That’s simply untrue! There were lots of reports of unusual activity from that night – there were no reports of anything being found is all.

Feel free to provide documentation from 1965 that shows that there was “unusual activity” and something was found that night. I have asked before for this and all you have presented have been the “rumors” of something being present and the flashing lights (which was a hoax performed by a teenager as previously noted). You then revert to the claims made by all the “new” witnesses, who appeared over a decade later telling a different story about what happened.

Yet we know (and you accept) there were at least State Troopers and Fire Police cordons and equipment and at least three military personnel – and no photos of them either? And what about all the “civilians” flooding into the area causing traffic jams? …Perhaps it is simply the case that there were photos - but they were just not published for whatever reason.

It is a case of “man bites dog”. The media did not run a photograph of the traffic jam because all it would show is a bunch of cars on a road. The fire department and state police are not really big news either. Everyone has seen their fair share of fire trucks and troopers. As a result, they ran the photograph of Mrs. Kalp being interviewed as a “human interest” story. Had there been a military wrecker, a huge flatbed with something underneath (just about everyone saw it according to the myth), a personnel carrier, a large number of troops patrolling, etc…. it would be something worthy to publish in the paper. It would have been the elephant in the room and would have begged to go noticed. As a result, Mrs. Kalp might not have gotten her few minutes of fame and one probably would have seen a soldier with his rifle standing guard with the headline “Army ropes off area” underneath (instead of being in small print). Remember, this is the Greensberg Tribune-Review. What kind of excitement occurs in Westmoreland County that could beat that?

For one who is interested in FACTS, you seem you be doing an awful lot of speculating there AstroP… The contention is merely that military personnel and equipment were dispatched to the area and that something was recovered. I have simply noted that there were military bases within range that could have supplied the resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And those resources, even if they existed at the locations you gave (and there is reason to doubt these locations as having such equipment as I previous pointed out), could not maneuver on the roads without A LOT of attention being drawn to them. Their speed would have been a snail’s pace and they would have clogged up traffic just trying to get to Kecksburg.
Based on what I have looked at regarding the military equipment described, it seems highly unlikely that it happened at all. Almost all of the military vehicles described required special permits to navigate the roads because they were too wide. So how did they get there? Did they wave a magic wand?

I believe your thinking here is unfortunately an example of the type of thinking that pervades the UFO debunker mentality – that of drawing unfounded or unwarranted conclusions based on little no evidence. It is as if the mere belief that something is true confers veracity in that very same belief.

I am looking at what is known and recorded from the time period in question. I also am relying on the scientific investigation of the event to have been correctly done, which is why it was allowed to appear in a scientific journal and supported by other investigations done at the time. You have not demonstrated that the work was incorrect (other than some misguided belief that you can accurately tell the trajectory of a meteor/debris trail from one location) and you rely heavily on the stories told over a decade later to UFO proponents interested in creating a story that can pin their names to. I leave it to those reading this thread, which story is more likely to have occurred.

 

[Rramjet]

Snipped to stop repeating myself.

“Snipping” away sections of my argument that you cannot refute may be another way of looking at the same thing.

The argument against the trajectory computed by VDC and Krause has not been refuted. You can shout it all you want but that does not make it true.

How did you refute the fact that no error analysis was conducted and that potential measurement errors could cast doubt on the calculated trajectory – especially as we note that in their diagram the location of Campine was out by about 1 mile and that they had mixed up their labelling of Points A & B… Further noting that Campine himself (who was “best qualified to judge”) stated that the trajectory was 110 degrees (as opposed to C&K’s 39 degrees) and that the Canadian Airlines passenger saw the object while looking east from a position south of Pittsburgh…

Your argument was that “A single observer can not determine true trajectory direction of a fireball” and yet “ multiple observers combined can determine a location of the beginning and end of a fireball’s trajectory” and I merely noted that

However, if (according to you) no single observer can tell which direction something is travelling, then collating a whole group of erroneous trajectory estimates will not (can not and never will) amount to an accurate estimate!

The question is why were so many people (private and official) converging and focussing on the Kecksburg/Acme area? After all, if there were things coming down in other places, why not converge on those other places as well. Moreover, if, as you suggest, no-one actually saw anything come down in the area - and critically - no-one actually reported anything as coming down in the area, then how come all the activity and focus on that area?

It was big news in an area with a small population. Once it got announced by the local media, all sorts of people were interested.

Okay, so people were contacting the local media (phoning in to radio stations and newspapers) and saying what? Obviously they must have been reporting that something came down near Acme… there must have been (indeed there was) the odd report of debris from other locations, but for the interest to centre on Acme, that is where the majority of reports (made at the time) must have placed it. Yet you maintain that no reports of anything coming down in the Kecksburg/Acme area were received in 1965…

The military was interested enough to send a team of radar techs/operators based on the media reports but nothing more than that.

Sure but the media had to get their information from somewhere.

Once they reported nothing was found it was over as far as the AF was concerned.

As far as the AF was publically concerned you are possibly correct.

The other locations in Ohio did not get the immediate media coverage that was received in Kecksburg.

That’s for sure.

They were strictly a print story but Kecksburg had the luxury of having coverage by local radio and, according to Gordon, some updates being made on Pittsburgh TV as well. That tends to get everyone’s attention

Sure but are you contending that there were no radio stations within 200 miles of Kecksburg (and closer to where you allege the object actually terminated) that could have also received reports? We know people were phoning Blue Book from at least as far away as Detroit… has Detroit no radio station?

There are no eyewitness reports from 1965 that state something was definitely found.

As far as I know that is true.

In fact, most everything you find in the media reports is that “nothing” was ever found. They suspected something was there but when it was all said and done, they found nothing.

“they” cordoned the place off and later informed the media that nothing was found - and the media duly reported that nothing was found.

In your case there was no sonic boom.

Indeed none was apparent, nor anything from the terminal burst… yet its speed and trajectory might indicate that there should have been… for it must have been travelling basically horizontally as it passed over my head, yet it also travelled 10s of miles (to my direct knowledge but in all probability much more) in mere seconds - yet all I heard was a loud hissing as it passed close (frighteningly close – close enough to cause me to instinctively, but of course uselessly, duck) over my head and all I saw was a terminal flash in the distance a couple of seconds later.

However, in this case, we know there was one.

…as you contend, but from the terminal burst rather than from a sonic boom caused by its speed through the atmosphere…

The only reason it could not be heard in one place but heard in another was because of distance. The further you are from the epicenter of the event, the less likely you are to feel its effects.

And so over what is the distance can it no longer be heard?

That was the Hayes family who was renting property on the Hilland farm. Mrs. Kalp was near Acme. The real owners of the various properties, I previously listed. The Millers owned the property bordering the ravine and road where the state police set up their relay post to talk to the barracks. The Kovacina’s deny anything landed on their property and they owned the land where the acorn supposedly hit.

Yet the Kovacina’s were not there – all who were there reported various unusual activities…

Ed Myers (not Bitner) was the actual 1965 fire chief according to Bob Young.

”For years, retiree Robert Bitner, former Kecksburg fire chief, a man who believes that something noteworthy fell from the sky, hasn't spoken with his brother-in-law. He maintains only a nodding acquaintance with neighbor and fellow ex-fire chief Ed Myers. It's a cold war born of the UFO dispute.

"I'd love to know what the government knows about it," Bitner said. "It might help us end this thing for good." (http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_westmoreland/20030309kecksburgwestmor1p1.asp)​

”Myers' response: More hooey. The firehouse was open and people jammed the social club, he said.

"We probably sold as much beer as we ever did because of all the people," he said.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1306.htm)​

Feel free to provide documentation from 1965 that shows that there was “unusual activity” and something was found that night.

From your witnesses alone “The firehouse was open and people jammed the social club” – that apparently was unusual activity enough to comment on… the Millars observed a Police/Fire roadblock on the road outside their property …so there was plenty of unusual activity reported – there are no reports (from the time) of anything being found.

I have asked before for this and all you have presented have been the “rumors” of something being present and the flashing lights (which was a hoax performed by a teenager as previously noted). You then revert to the claims made by all the “new” witnesses, who appeared over a decade later telling a different story about what happened.

At the time there were reports of lots of unusual activity – including military activity… At the time there were no reports of anything being found…

It is a case of “man bites dog”. The media did not run a photograph of the traffic jam because all it would show is a bunch of cars on a road. The fire department and state police are not really big news either. Everyone has seen their fair share of fire trucks and troopers. As a result, they ran the photograph of Mrs. Kalp being interviewed as a “human interest” story. Had there been a military wrecker, a huge flatbed with something underneath (just about everyone saw it according to the myth), a personnel carrier, a large number of troops patrolling, etc…. it would be something worthy to publish in the paper. It would have been the elephant in the room and would have begged to go noticed. As a result, Mrs. Kalp might not have gotten her few minutes of fame and one probably would have seen a soldier with his rifle standing guard with the headline “Army ropes off area” underneath (instead of being in small print). Remember, this is the Greensberg Tribune-Review. What kind of excitement occurs in Westmoreland County that could beat that?

A photograph of at least a State Trooper standing as part of a cordon and warning people off (which no-one denies having happened) is not newsworthy under a caption such as “Army ropes off area” over and above a photo of Gatty interviewing Kalp? The question is that there were plenty of photo opportunities for something more newsworthy than Kalp/Gatty – so why were such photos not published – for it seems hard to imagine that none were taken… but perhaps it was merely because it was dark and none turned out good enough to print… who knows – all we (including you) can do is speculate…

The contention is merely that military personnel and equipment were dispatched to the area and that something was recovered. I have simply noted that there were military bases within range that could have supplied the resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And those resources, even if they existed at the locations you gave (and there is reason to doubt these locations as having such equipment as I previous pointed out), could not maneuver on the roads without A LOT of attention being drawn to them. Their speed would have been a snail’s pace and they would have clogged up traffic just trying to get to Kecksburg.

Based on what I have looked at regarding the military equipment described, it seems highly unlikely that it happened at all. Almost all of the military vehicles described required special permits to navigate the roads because they were too wide. So how did they get there? Did they wave a magic wand?

You speculate on the type and mobility of the necessary equipment – a couple of jeeps (or even cars) and a small flatbed truck would have been all that was necessary…

I am looking at what is known and recorded from the time period in question.

As am I.

I also am relying on the scientific investigation of the event to have been correctly done…

That reliance is potentially misguided.

…which is why it was allowed to appear in a scientific journal…

How a “scientific” paper containing triangulation measurement was allowed to be published with no assessment of potential measurement error borders on the somewhat incredible.

…and supported by other investigations done at the time.

…and refuted as well…

You have not demonstrated that the work was incorrect…

I have demonstrated that there are potential measurement errors that throw the whole calculation into doubt (including a critical location in the diagram being out by 1 mile) that there are verified eyewitnesses who at the time also refute the calculation.

(other than some misguided belief that you can accurately tell the trajectory of a meteor/debris trail from one location)…

If you see it travelling in a particular direction and report it as travelling in that direction… Besides the Canadian Airlines passenger, to the south of Pittsburgh, looked east and saw it…

…and you rely heavily on the stories told over a decade later…

No, merely noting that those eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a particular story and those who were not there at the time deny it.

…to UFO proponents interested in creating a story that can pin their names to.

That is of course your own particular characterisation and I am not surprised that you would characterise it in that way.

I leave it to those reading this thread, which story is more likely to have occurred.

Something unusual occurred… the reports of the time indicate that much at the very least. The eyewitnesses who were there at the time report unusual activity. All that remains is to decide whether the reports of an object being recovered are believable in the face of official denials. The bottom line is that most everything else is not actually in dispute.

 

[RoboTimbo]

“Snipping” away sections of my argument that you cannot refute may be another way of looking at the same thing.

That's quite dishonest of you, since Astrophotographer has already answered the parts he snipped. But here are some questions which you've never answered.

Was it substandard research ability that caused you to not post links to evidence that the Johnson boy attempted other hoaxes at Delphos? Or was it outright dishonesty on your part in hiding them? You've never answered that but you did liken the question to asking someone if they still beat their wife. It is still perfectly acceptable to ask a confirmed wife beater if he still beats his wife.

Also, you've never answered this post which you specifically asked for: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7330886#post7330886

When will you be able to answer both of those? Or are they irrefutable?