UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

In reference to the:

Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)

Maybe because it's just you throwing more bovine excrement at the wall to see if any of it sticks.

So that is your considered analysis of the case? Once again it does nothing to clarify and enlighten.

I'm guessing what I'll see on the video is an ambiguous blob on some grainy film? Am I right?

Actually you are not “right”.

“Examination under a microscope shows the camera to be well focussed as the edges of the images are sharp and clear on many of the properly exposed frames.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-439)​

However, the fact that, by your own admission, you have not even bothered to view the film or the official reports surrounding it before commenting in such a manner does not surprise me in the least. It seems to represent the typical UFO debunker mindset (“Don’t bother me with the facts, don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”).

What is the point? I spent weeks discussing Kecksburg and presenting information that was missing from all your UFO websites and demonstrated your conclusions were wrong.

You “spent weeks” attempting to uphold the debunker position concerning the case - in the face of me pointing out serious omissions in the “scholarly” assessment of that case and in the face of the eyewitness evidence. I concluded that clearly something unusual happened that night (areas cordoned off, the military involvement, media involvement, searches conducted, people flocking from miles around to “sightsee”) but that the evidence for something actually being found and carted away was equivocal.

You just ignored it and kept repeating what the UFO websites told you. It is a case of Rinse, Lather, Repeat.

No, you simply ignored my conclusions to maintain your own hardline position without ever demonstrating that my conclusions were unreasonable.

The same will occur here. They are most likely birds and nobody has ever presented good evidence to suggest otherwise.

Ah, so you do have a position on the case that you would like to defend.

Hartmann in the Condon study and the Robertson Panel all concluded they were probably seagulls and saw no reason to conclude otherwise.

Seagulls huh? The official investigations and assessments of the film concluded:

” Also, there is no known bird that could emit such a radiation as would be required to produce the observed brightness. Either a large metallic surface of nearly flat shape, or a self-luminous source is thought to be responsible.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-420)​

”Slow motion examination of successive frames suggests a general flight pattern of sweeping slow curves in space.”

“The average calculated angular velocity for both paths is about 2.1 degrees per second.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-421)​

”It can be deduced, however, that they are either non-spherical in shape and similar to bright metal in reflectance, or else variably self-luminous by some means.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-422)​

…and in a separate analysis:

“It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis that these images are light sources. This will explain the non-blinking and variations in luminosity – but not the velocity and acceleration factors. In either case, light source or reflective surface, it appears as if the objects are of a nature which we are not able to identify in terms of natural phenomena or commonly known man-made objects.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=MAXW-PBB11-411)​

“There is no indication of what kind of objects could have caused the images except that they must be of a construction, design, and material not commonly'' known. This is indicated by the computed acceleration rate and velocity (answer S). For the same reasons, birds, aircraft and balloons are ruled out." (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=MAXW-PBB11-411)​

From the FBI:

“ Experts at the Air Technical Intelligence Center have advised that, after careful study, there were as many as twelve to sixteen flying objects recorded on this film; that the possibility of weather balloons, clouds or other explainable objects has been completely ruled out; and that they are at a complete loss to explain this most recent credible sighting. The Air Technical Intelligence Center experts pointed out that they could not be optical illusions inasmuch as optical illusions could not be recorded on film.” (http://www.nicap.org/utah5.htm)​

From Micheal Swords:

“In a memorandum [USAF] dated February 11, 1953, concerning the release of the Tremonton film, it is stated that concern existed about releasing the film without the analyses. This is because of what the analyses said. " The Air Force lab analysis concludes that: a} they are reasonably sure that the brightness of the images on the film exceeds that of any bird. b} The objects are not spherical balloons. c} The objects could not be aircraft." Note that this is the Air Force analysis saying this, so previous comment on people doubting the "goodness" of this film as, say, Robertson Panel evidence should be at least modified. More quoting: "The Navy report says the objects are: a} Self-luminous or light sources. b} Could not be aircraft or balloons. c} No bird is known is [sic--replace with "to"] reflect enough light to cause the images shown on the film." And an explanation of this statement follows in the memo. One may disagree with these conclusions, but one needs to recognize that the history of the time points to both Air Force and Navy labs being in sympathy with the film showing anomalous objects. This being said, one feels that it is appropriate to disagree with these allegedly competent professionals, who unlike ourselves actually worked on the primary copy at the time, with some humility.” (http://www.nicap.org/utah8.htm)​

And so on…

Against that we have Hartmann (in Condon) stating (in effect) “Well, I saw some birds one day that I mistook for objects similar to those in the film – so they must be seagulls…” Yeah, right.

 

[TjW]

When I first posted this answer, I made it perfectly clear that it was based on speculation for technology that we don't know is feasible yet. I also cautioned that it would be used outside that context as a criticism. So the criticisms you see from other posters here are made outside that context and are a misrepresentation of my initial post.

As for what physicists know about gravity, you can learn as much yourself in fairly short order because they don't really know that much. It is still an unexplained force of nature, and its properties ( how to relate to it mathematically ) are based on easy to understand ideas that are based on the quatities of mass in a given area of space and the distances from that mass.

The biggest differences in the theories are based on Newtonian vs General Relativity. In general relativity gravity is a result of the spatial geometry, so it's not that hard to imagine that if it were possible for an object to use some kind of device to affect the spatial dimensions around itself, that it could simply create a gravity well nearby for it to fall into, and by constantly projecting that gravity well ahead of itself, it would be drawn in that direction. Because such as system wouldn't actually be moving the air out of its way in a conventional sense, the conditions that create a conventional shock wave may never form.

Similarly, even if we use Newtonian physics, and some some kind of "garvitational force" generator were possible, a similar kind of compression and decompression between the air molecules could be made to take place that might negate the kind of compression wave required to form a sonic boom. After all in a gravitational field, atoms are bunched together closer near the source of gravity and spread farther apart in weak field or at a distance.

Anyway ... sure, take this to a real physicist and ask them to speculate on the validity of these ideas. Also don't forget to use your own mind. And here is a link to a former NASA engineer with some ideas on how a UFO propulsion system might work.

j.r.

It doesn't have to do so much with what physicists know about gravity as what they know about air. If a flying object were to be gravity-powered in the way you describe, it would still make a sonic boom.
Not only do such gravity-powered flying machines exist, but I flew the first of several I've owned July 17, 1973. Mine weren't supersonic, of course. Those are more expensive than I can afford.
But I did observe such a supersonic flying object on July 4th, 1982, along with about 500,000 of my closest friends. It made sonic booms.

 

[Akhenaten]

No it wasn’t, your point was about attempting to reinterpret the drawings as representing a blimp – which of course was a deliberate distortion of reality and a scurrilous attempt to obfuscate the evidence.

What???

The witnesses described the object and included the phrase “circular like a coin or pancake” to distinguish it from other conceptualisations of circular, such as “circular like a cylinder” or “circular like a sphere”.

Circular like a coin or pancake is exactly what Stray Cat (and myself, for that matter, drew). There can be no mistaking the object for a sphere, although it's apparently escaped your notice that coins, and indeed pancakes, are actually cylinders.

It was an impressionistic statement and did not mean that the object was a perfect replica of either a coin or a pancake.

You really are just making this nonsense up as you go, aren't you?

Now, having come to the realisation that your “drawings represent a blimp” obfuscation can no longer be maintained, you are now disingenuously attempting a further obfuscation by contending there is a discrepancy between the descriptor “coin” (or “pancake”) and what was drawn.

You seem to be trying to convince people that Stray Cat's drawings don't depict something shaped like a coin or pancake, yet everyone can obviously see that they do.

It defies belief that you can't see how patently ridiculous that is.

<drivel>

 

[Rramjet]

On the contrary. The records show that blimps has been active in the area for many years both before, during and after the event. You're blinded by your belief in "aliens" visiting earth.

“Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)​

As for the advertising blimps:

1947 Goodyear West Coast Blimp Tour
1949-1982 Lumber Planing Mills
1952-1953 USAF Balloon Testing 1958 Balloon Launching (Cosmic Ray Research) 1963 & 1979 Coast-To-Coast Launching Point
1981-1991 Cyclocrane Development
1984 Short Take-Off & Landing Experiments
1984-Present Various Blimp Developments
1989 Government Aerostat Testing
1990 Trans-World Balloon Testing
1992-Present Aircraft Museum (Hangar B)
1994 USAF Tethered Radar Balloon Testing
(http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)

Now we must note that the Goodyear “Tour” was operational only in 1947: That is, not 1948 or 1949 (the Rogue River case was 24 May 1949) - because it if was operational in those years, there would have been an indication recorded in the table that it was – but of course it was a “Lumbar Planing Mill” at the time of the sighting.

I could of course supply much, much more official, historical documentary evidence (pages of it from many different sources) to show no blimps at Rogue River (indeed I have done so when the case was discussed – many, many times over) and thus that “blimp” is not a plausible explanation.

That you simply ignore the historical evidence Jocce says something about your mindset and that something is simply that you will not even stop short of attempting to falsify the official historical records to maintain your own belief system.

You will not stop short of attempting to falsify my own statements on the matter either - where I have consistently and categorically stated (and on so many occasions it is ridiculous that I have to repeat it now in the face of your comments) that I have NEVER proposed that ET was the explanation for the case reports I am presenting.

And frankly Jocce, that you would even make such attempts at falsifying the official records leaves us wondering whether we can trust anything you might have to say.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip of you trying to rewrite history about the Kecksburg argument. Those who read this thread knows exactly how that came out. Now you attempt to, once again, demonstrate the only source of information you find reliable are UFO websites. I notice that when bluebook makes a statement that supports your position, it is ok to use it. However, when it indicates a sighting that was mundane, you suddenly reject it as part of the conspiracy. Nice double standard there. Since you seem to insist:

Against that we have Hartmann (in Condon) stating (in effect) “Well, I saw some birds one day that I mistook for objects similar to those in the film – so they must be seagulls…” Yeah, right.

Wrong again. You haven't even read the Condon study have you? So much for honestly researching anything but I am not surprised at all.

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm

Specifically, Hartmann addresses some of the arguments with actual measurements and analysis. He did not simply say "I saw some birds one day". Another case of you just not being honest with those reading the thread. In his analysis, he writes:

As noted above, the Navy's and Baker's angular velocity measurements give similar values. Baker's measurements of the single object, where it is reported and assumed that the camera was stationary, gave values of 0.01 to 0.07 radians per sec. Variations were attributed to camera jiggling. Values averaged over two sequences were 0.031 and 0.039 radians/sec. These correspond to linear transverse velocities (at 2,000 ft. distance) of 14-95 mph, with the averaged values being 42 and 53 mph. Since the objects were at a high elevation angle, the transverse velocity probably approximates the total velocity. Taking into account an additional positive or negative uncertainty due to possible residual panning motion, the indicated range of velocities is compatible with the bird hypothesis.

In his conclusions, he wrote:

In favor of the hypothesis that the Tremonton objects were birds, probably gulls, we have the following arguments: (1) White gulls are known to be present in the area. (2) Bird-sized objects at a distance of 2,000 ft. would be on the limits of visual resolution, moving at about 45 to 55 mph east to west, with relative motions up to 9 mph; (3) Such motions are independently supported by the testimony that the objects overtook and were first sighted from a moving car traveling toward the NW. The objects were kept in sight until the car was stopped, and nearly a minute and a half of film exposed. (4) Baker points out that the departure of a single object from the group is typical of a bird seeking a new thermal updraft. (5) Variations in motion and brightness suggest wheeling birds. (6) The bulk of informed opinion among those who studied the film, both in and out of the Air Force, is that birds were the most probable explanation.

Arguments against gulls include the following: (1) The distances and velocities cited are on the margin of acceptability. If the gulls were slightly closer, they should have been clearly identified since their angular size would exceed 3 min. of arc; if they were slightly further away, their velocity would become unacceptably high. This argument is considerably weakened by noting that somewhat smaller birds could be unresolvable but slow. (2) Arguments have been raised that the weather conditions would not be conducive to thermal updrafts that would allow long, soaring flights of birds. This is not a strong argument, however, since there is insuffient data concerning weather conditions. (3) No clear, periodic flapping is observed on the film. This is not critical, since there are erratic brightness fluctuations, and since the objects were evidently below the limits of resolution. (4) The strongest negative argument was stated later by the witness that the objects were seen to subtend an angle of about 0.5° and were then seen as gun-metal colored and shaped like two saucers held together rim to rim, but the photographs and circumstances indicate that this observation could not have been meaningful.

Note that Hartmann examined all the analyses that were conducted and could not find any problem with them and the Seagull hypothesis. In fact, the strongest argument is based on the anecdotal evidence provided by the witness and not the film itself.

Let's not forget that the Robertson panel of scientists (including a future nobel prize winner) agreed that they appeared to be birds. http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm

That is what science says regarding the evidence. Do you have any new scientific analysis that says different? I think not.

Now that I have repeated the skeptic position, you will now repeat the quotes you just gave and state this is all a government cover-up. I, in turn, will have to state that your sources are biased and selective and that your charges of a cover-up is unsupported by evidence. The cycle will continue to repeat. What a waste of time for you when you could be analyzing those NUFORC reports like I challenged you to do. I guess you aren't up to that kind of research.

 

[John Albert]

Well, that pretty much nails it. The BH clearly trumps the ETH in this case.

Next!

 

[Akhenaten]

...given my upbringing, it was natural for me to accept that space travel was real and other civilizations could exist, and therefore UFOs could exist, and since USAF pilots had seen UFOs, and people I knew and trusted had also seen one, I just accepted they were real. But that didn't mean I was ( or am ) prone to simply jumping to unfounded coclusions.

Your statements on these forums are adequate indicators of that.

The above is an unfounded proclaimation and has no weight.

You're hardly in a position to be asserting what weight John Albert's statements carry with an audience which is already convinced that your silly anecdotes are lighter than an anti-gravity generator.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“ Against that we have Hartmann (in Condon) stating (in effect) “Well, I saw some birds one day that I mistook for objects similar to those in the film – so they must be seagulls…” Yeah, right.”

Wrong again. You haven't even read the Condon study have you? So much for honestly researching anything but I am not surprised at all.

Hartman (in Condon) stated:

”I had occasion to drive through Utah and made a point of watching for birds. The countryside near Tremonton is grassy farmland with trees, streams, and meadows. It was within 30 mi. of Tremonton that I noticed the greatest concentration of bird activity. A number of large gulls were seen, some with white bodies and duskytipped wings (rendering the wings indistinct in flight) and some pure white. About 10 mi. south of Tremonton and again about 20 mi. north of Panguitch (in southern Utah) I saw flocks of white or light birds at once distinctly reminiscent of the key witness's films. The birds milled about, the whole group drifting at about 20 or 30 mph [[652]] (I noticed no surface wind) and subtending 10° to 20°. The individual birds (in the second case) were not quite resolvable, yet appeared to have some structure. Sometimes pairs would move together and sometimes individuals or pairs would turn and fade out as others became prominent. As suggested by the key witness they appeared to require a telephoto lens for photography. They were not prominent, but distinctly curious once noted - a group of white objects milling about in the sky. (The only proof that my second group of objects, which I observed from a considerable distance, were indeed birds, was that I saw them take off.) These observations give strong evidence that the Tremonton films do show birds, as hypothesized above, and I now regard the objects as so identified. (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm)​

So before his epiphany he was unsure – despite the “scientific” investigation - and after - he was convinced. Precisely as I stated originally.

 

[Akhenaten]

But I had some background knowledge on UFOs and that's why I forced myself to stay awake all night.

Background knowledge about something that hasn't been identified?

Sure you did.

There weren't any lines at the height the object rose to. In the dawn, I would have been able to see the tower if there had been. Also no storms or electrical activity.

You don't know how high the object was because you don't know how far away it was because you don't know how big it was.

You can't know that you would have been able to see a tower, only that you didn't see it.

NOTE: I've come up with theory that is probably as plausible as Klass' plasma discharge theory, but it would require science that I don't think we had back then. It could probably be done with technology we could build today though, and possibly explain some of the hard to resolve crop circle formations, particularly those that have suggested some sort of radiation exposure.

Sounds like a combination of pseudoscience and Rretrofitting to me, and tiny fonts won't help.

 

[ufology]

You're hardly in a position to be asserting what weight John Albert's statements carry with an audience which is already convinced that your silly anecdotes are lighter than an anti-gravity generator.

The comment above is irrelevant to the topic of the discussion. Perhaps you'd like to introduce something on the topic of extraterrestrials?

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Let us look at Hartmann’s “scientific evaluation” From (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm):

“…where it is reported and assumed that the camera was stationary…” (and) “… indicated range of velocities is compatible with the bird hypothesis.”

The camera was not stationary. It quite obviously follows the flight path of the objects. So this section of “analysis can be dismissed right off the bat.

So what else does Hartmann have?

“(1) White gulls are known to be present in the area.”

So because gulls were known in the area – then that is what the objects must have been? If that’s the standard of “scientific analysis” we can expect from Hartmann, then the rest should be easy… LOL.

“(2) Bird-sized objects at a distance of 2,000 ft. would be on the limits of visual resolution, moving at about 45 to 55 mph east to west, with relative motions up to 9 mph”

Oh, okay, let’s just invent a distance and size for the observations that supports my a priori beliefs and call it on that basis shall we? LOL.

“(3) Such motions are independently supported by the testimony that the objects overtook and were first sighted from a moving car traveling toward the NW. The objects were kept in sight until the car was stopped, and nearly a minute and a half of film exposed.”

Oh, so the objects were first observed from inside a moving car … and those observations might match with point 2 – so let’s call it on that then? Where is the scientific analysis?

“(4) Baker points out that the departure of a single object from the group is typical of a bird seeking a new thermal updraft.”

This is getting ridiculous. Is this the “scientific analysis” that you are referring to AstroP? Really? The official investigations of the film show no such “departures”…

“(5) Variations in motion and brightness suggest wheeling birds.”

It suggests “wheeling birds”? The official SCIENTIFIC investigations “suggest” otherwise. LOL.

“ (6) The bulk of informed opinion among those who studied the film, both in and out of the Air Force, is that birds were the most probable explanation.”

Not only is that a false statement – it is a fallacious Argumentum ad populum. Perhaps THAT is the “scientific analysis” you refer to AstroP?

And that’s it for our “scientific” Hartmann – well all except his conclusions – which to paraphrase contend: “Well, I saw some birds one day that I mistook for objects similar to those in the film – so they must be seagulls…”

Yep, all that’s pretty “scientific” AstroP. LOL.

 

[ufology]

Background knowledge about something that hasn't been identified?

Sure you did. You don't know how high the object was because you don't know how far away it was because you don't know how big it was.

You can't know that you would have been able to see a tower, only that you didn't see it.

Sounds like a combination of pseudoscience and Rretrofitting to me, and tiny fonts won't help.

The above is a misrepresentation of my sighting report based on personal opinion and no direct experience.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The comment above is irrelevant to the topic of the discussion. Perhaps you'd like to introduce something on the topic of extraterrestrials?

j.r.

The question asked by the OP is "Do you believe that extraterrestrials exist?" and my comment speaks to the credibilty of people who do so with a zealous disregard for the complete lack of evidence.

They have none.

 

[Jono74]

Ufology:
Thanyou for the answers to some of my Q's. Its a long thread, and Im just trying to get the whole thing loaded into my head, and every little bit of info helps. I cant seem to come up with a good over view of the lay of the land, however.
Is there any possibility that if there were no visible pylon/s by the light of dawn, that there could have been suspended line/s running up the hill/mountain in line of sight where it did the 8's? ie - line on poles, but runnung either just above, at, or just below treetop heights. These could prove VERY difficult to see, if not impossible, and even more so in low light conditions.
No campers over there, full of drinks and spinning their torches around on strings? (flashlights for Nth Americans )

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is a misrepresentation of my sighting report based on personal opinion and no direct experience.

j.r.

It's not a matter of opinion that your 'sighting report' is evolving during the course of this thread. I have, as we all do, direct experience of it
happening.

 

[Rramjet]

It's not a matter of opinion that your 'sighting report' is evolving during the course of this thread. I have, as we all do, direct experience of it
happening.

This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)

 

[ufology]

Ufology:
Thanyou for the answers to some of my Q's. Its a long thread, and Im just trying to get the whole thing loaded into my head, and every little bit of info helps. I cant seem to come up with a good over view of the lay of the land, however.
Is there any possibility that if there were no visible pylon/s by the light of dawn, that there could have been suspended line/s running up the hill/mountain in line of sight where it did the 8's? ie - line on poles, but runnung either just above, at, or just below treetop heights. These could prove VERY difficult to see, if not impossible, and even more so in low light conditions.
No campers over there, full of drinks and spinning their torches around on strings? (flashlights for Nth Americans )

Q. Is there any possibility that if there were no visible pylon/s by the light of dawn, that there could have been suspended line/s running up the hill/mountain in line of sight where it did the 8's?

A. There is always a possibility of almost anything. But the liklihood in this case approaches zero. Technically, for the initial sightings where the object came up from behind the mountain and down into the valley, and for the figure eight and hovering maneuvers, some sort of jet powered object attached to a perfectly curved track would be feasible. At night, such a track would not have been visible, but by dawn there is no way I could have missed something that obvious.

I also drove around to the other side of the lake in the full daylight and would have been about a kilometer from where it had last been seen. Several very tall towers would have been required, much taller than treetop level. There was nothing like that there. Also, the sheer accelleration of the object when it departed cannot be explained by conventional aerodynamics or rocketry.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)

I don't think you know enough about memory to make statements like these, to be honest. What are your credentials that allow you to evaluate how people's memories can or cannot not evolve?

Memories change, maybe every time they are remembered, often leading to incorrectly remembering the actual event, and they can be molded. Are you even aware of that?

 

[John Albert]

This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)

This report has exhibited several inconsistencies, even about details he has sworn up and down that he was 100% certain about. He's reported major details inconsistently and hand-waved it off as "metric conversion errors" and "hurriedly posting on an Internet forum."

His story also appears to be evolving to morph itself around any questions that might imply a plausible, mundane explanation for the events.

Besides all that, this story defies not only reasonable credibility, but it explicitly defies the basic laws of physics. When we suggested that the lack of a sonic boom implies the image in question might have been caused by a reflection in a windowpane, for example, ufology concocted some absurd rationalization that might conceivably make sense in the context of a Dr. Who episode.

 

[ufology]

This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)

Hey Ramjet

In the haste and informal setting of the discussion forum, I quoted the wrong name for the album the songs we were listening to were on, and made a bad on the fly metric conversion or typo or something that created a discrepancy my vertical height estimate. I had no explanation for the lack of a sonic boom and was reluctatnt to speculate. But was asked to speculate anyway, and was of course attacked out of context for that.

The reason the story has evolved here on the thread is because ( as was mentioned several times now ), I was asked specific questions and plastering the whole sighting down as a response would not have been appropriate. I still stand by and defer to the info on my website. With some of the new Google Earth tools I may be able to provide even more detail, but of course then I'll be accused of "changing my story".

j.r.