UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

If you actually READ my post and the AIR reports I link to, you will see that the statement with the diagram is Deahy's - who was not a draftsman.

But how then are we to account for the high degree of skill required to produce such an exquisitely detailed diagram with it's wealth of information about the object and its ability to convey . . .

umm. . . never mind.

 

[Rramjet]

I suggest you reread my post. The AIR report with the diagrram is the statement by the NON-draftsman Deahy.Pot.Kettle.Black.[/I]No it does not.

If you actually READ my post and the AIR reports I link to, you will see that the statement with the diagram is Deahy's - who was not a draftsman.

Actually, you are right. Obviously then I was mistaken - and therefore retract my contention that the drawings were made by the draftsman in the party.

That of course does not detract from the accomplishment shown in representing the object in those drawings. It also remains clear that the drawings were meant to represent a circular (like a coin) object and not a cylindrical (like a blimp) object.

Indeed Heaphy, in his record of interview states:

“ Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges...”.

..and in his later signed testimony before the AFOSI officer he stated:

“But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake…”

Mr B (who also viewed the object through binoculars) stated:

“ Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece…”

Mr D (who did not have the aid of binoculars) stated:

“The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar…”

Thus there can be no doubt about what the drawings were meant to represent - and any attempt to make out otherwise (such as the "blimp" campaign that has been conducted by the debunkers almost from the very first presentation of this case) is disingenuous and scurrilous.

 

[EHocking]

Actually, you are right. Obviously then I was mistaken - and therefore retract my contention that the drawings were made by the draftsman in the party.

I appreciate that fact. Now if only ufology would read my posts

....
Thus there can be no doubt about what the drawings were meant to represent - and any attempt to make out otherwise (such as the "blimp" campaign that has been conducted by the debunkers almost from the very first presentation of this case) is disingenuous and scurrilous.

Frankly, the drawings look like and have always looked like a blimp to me.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, you are right. Obviously then I was mistaken - and therefore retract my contention that the drawings were made by the draftsman in the party.

So all this utter bilge (and these are just some highlights) was based on you not even having bothered to read the applicable report:

But that is not what was observed. What the draftsman drew was an accurate as possible representation of what was observed.

In that respect, if I was assessing the UFO reports of the same object as submitted by the draftsman and yourself - I would have to conclude yours to be less reliable and you not to be a particularly observant witness in comparison to the draftsman and less skilled in representing your observations.
Your representation contains none of the detailed features of the object and gives us no sense of what the object was actually like. One could look at the draftsman’s drawings and get a good sense of the object itself. One simply cannot get that from your sketchy, overly simplistic, plan drawings. In essence yours is almost a childlike representation, unsophisticated and lacking in detail while the draftsman’s drawings contain a wealth of detailed information about the object. Quite simply, based on the drawings alone, I would rely on the draftsman as a witness over you any day.

He described (in written testimony) what he observed … He also represented (in highly detailed and sophisticated drawings) what he observed… both represent the object in a different level of detail. Both his written testimony and his visual representation can be used in conjunction to provide a more complete conceptualisation of the observed object.


The official AFOSI report states that he was a draftsman – are you contending that the Air force Special Investigator listed his occupation incorrectly? You are really stretching credulity there Stray Cat…
We are only “discussing” it because the UFO debunkers (including yourself) are intent on denying and disingenuously obfuscating the evidence – for it seems that is the only way they (or you) can maintain their (or your) faith-based belief system.


It is only ambiguous to those who do not understand the three dimensional perspective represented in those drawings. Once that perspective is drawn to the attention of said observers – and they persist in then misrepresenting that perspective – then one can only assume they are doing so deliberately in order to advance an agenda of their own. Now I wonder what that agenda might be...LOL.


The witness descriptions (circular like a coin or pancake) leave us in no doubt as to the shape of the object – and such testimony provides a BIG clue as to the perspective one should take when viewing the drawings. You can only misinterpret that perspective in the drawings if you ignore the eyewitness descriptions – and even then you would have to be ignorant of the techniques used in drawing to represent three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Are you really contending you are ignorant of those techniques?

Other readers will realise that the draftsman (for irrefutably that is what he was) drew two sophisticated representations of the object, including as much detail about the object as he could, in order that the viewer might understand what the object looked like and how it moved.

<snip>

So there was a typo in Dr Maccabee’s report and Mr B should have been Mr D in that instance. Who cares – The AFOSI report lists his occupation as a draftsman.<snip>

What does that mean? I have explained that the bottom of the object was not flat but curved, and that is clearly represented in the drawings - thus the bottom of the object is not represented by a “perfect” elipse in the first drawing. Only someone who did not understand how three dimensional objects can be represented on a two dimensional surface could make such a mistake – OR someone intent on an agenda driven obfuscation of the evidence.<snip>

Clearly you have yet to take advantage of any of that documentation to expand your knowledge of the subject. May I suggest you actually do so before commenting again?

That's just part of only three posts Rramjet. All that scorn, all that condescending, sneering vitriol, all those aspersions about the abilities of those who were trying to get you to see the bleeding obvious - all based on what? Your supercilious belief that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong? And you don't even need to read the source material to make this judgement?

And now, sure as eggs you'll waffle on about how it doesn't matter after all who made the drawings, because they speak for themselves and whoever the artist was, no matter what his occupation, he was clearly the equal of Leonardo himself and how dare we question the photo-perfect realism of his diagrams?

That of course does not detract from the accomplishment shown in representing the object in those drawings.

Want to bet?

It also remains clear that the drawings were meant to represent a circular (like a coin) object and not a cylindrical (like a blimp) object.

Yeah, and a squid is a fish.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.”


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.

However, your statement implied there was no analysis of the film and the only thing Hartmann relied upon was this observation. That is not being accurate and one might say you were being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Really? He does not constantly pan as you suggest. According to RL Baker (a UFO proponent), in UFOS: A scientific debate (p.198):

"He reports that one of the objects reversed its course and proceeded away from the rest of the group, he held the camera still and allowed this single object to pass across the field of view of the camera, picking it up later in its course. He repeated this for three passes."

So what else does Hartmann have?

His attempt was to see if the bird hypothesis was a reasonable explanation and you failed to mention his measurements of how he arrived at his distances.

The angular diameters of images range from 0.0016 to 0.0004 radians (5.5 to 1.5 min. of arc). Assuming a "bird-size" reflecting circle of 8 in. diameter, these results would give distances of 415 - 1,670 ft., respectively.

This is where he arrived at 2000 feet. It was not "invented" as you falsely stated. He was attempting to see if it was possible they were birds. He could not falsify this hypothesis, which means it was a perfectly valid explanation. Of course, I am sure you will proclaim that you can falsify the bird hypothesis. Feel free to do so but you need to do better than proclaim that the witness states they could not be birds.

 

[tsig]

The object did repeated precise manuevers ( several figure 8s ) in the same place on two occasisions and when it departed, it instantly covered over 25 Km from a dead stop in about 1 second. The etreme fast precision maneuvers in the same place on two occasions indicate some kind of flight control system and that implies some kind of intelligence as opposed to a random earthlight or ball lightning phenomenon. Nothing natural or manmade with a flight control system can go from a dead stop to cover over 25 Km in 1 second. So if it wasn't anything manmade or natural that we know of, it had to be alien ( to us ). Where it came from or what it was exactly, I don't know. My best guess is it was some kind of automated probe.

The rest of skeptics here have just resorted to ridicule and/or personal attacks. As irksome as GeeMack may be, technically, you can't rule out that the whole story is fabricated, or that the stimulus was induced by some shared mental and/or perceptual abberation. And if you go with those explanations, you can rule out every unexplained sighting everyone has ever had or will ever have that doesn't include sufficient empirical scientific proof. Exactly what proof they would need has not been made clear.
j.r.

Proof needed is sufficient empirical scientific proof.

 

[23_Tauri]

It is a bit incomplete ... let me fill it in a bit.

...snipped for brevity.....

I know the difference between real science and science-fiction.

j.r.

Thank you for the background, ufology. Like GeeMack, I still maintain that you had an upbringing that made you open to the idea that the aliens were visiting Earth. What you have told me about your early years – the combination of an interest in science plus Star Trek - only confirms that for me.

But what if you had been born hundreds of years ago, before Aliens From Outer Space became a meme, courtesy of the space race and ‘Invasion of the Saucer Men’* and their ilk? If you had seen inexplicable lights in the sky 800 years ago it’s most likely you would have interpreted them using the Christian meme of the day, which was “God is to be feared, He watches over us and is in everything”. I say this because 800 years ago that is exactly how people interpreted lights in the sky: portents from the big guy.

*atrociously bad B-movie from 1957

 

[tsig]

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.

iow magic.

 

[tsig]

If the experiences you say that these people had weren't convincing enough to make them believe, then they were probably natural or manmade phenomena. Even my sighting is mild compared to what other people have seen, and it has left me with no personal doubt. If the sightings these people here have had are as good or better and they still don't believe, then they are just in a state of denial.

j.r.

Odd, that's just what the JW said last week.

 

[Resume]

These ETs are a bunch of pussies. Seldom if ever do they return to the site of an original sighting. Clearly they possess superior technology, so what are they afraid of? Crackers with 30-30s?

 

[MG1962]

And if you go with those explanations, you can rule out every unexplained sighting everyone has ever had or will ever have that doesn't include sufficient empirical scientific proof. Exactly what proof they would need has not been made clear.

j.r.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. Visual observation is notorious because it is based on perception. You claim to be well versed in astronomy yet seem to totally miss this axiom.

There has never been any physical evidence of alien space craft in our solar system. We have never observered an object that was not acting like a natural member of our solar system.

We have never picked up any energy sources that were even remotely unusual. And dont say we are not looking. When Pulsars were first recorded in the 60's a lot of people wondered had we not just found our first piece of evidence

We have never spotted any unusual activity on the surface of our planet. Although less so now. Both the Soviets and the US amassed huge resoruces to spot the slightest bit of unusual activity. They never knew what the other side might be up too.

We have never found the slightest piece of physical evidence. People like to say area 51 is full of such objects and the US is covering up. There are 212 nations on this planet, many with no love or interest in bowing to the US or in the day Soviet demands. Yet these spacecraft never seem to land in any of these places.

So until we get a Klatuu type encounter where he lands in Washington and says 'take me to your leader. As much as I want there to be aliens, want contact with said aliens - I am going to have to continue to dream

As Issac Asimov once said "I dont know what scares me more. That there are aliens out there, or that the universe is truely empty

 

[23_Tauri]

So show us where science has “proved” ET does not exist…

It won't because science doesn't deal with trying to prove negatives such as this. One cannot prove that extra-terrestrial life does not exist anywhere in the universe, which is what you imply in your statement above. But how is that relevant to whether there is evidence of ET visiting this planet?

 

[Aepervius]

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.
j.r.

SNIPPED for brievety.

You are mixing a bunch of word in a technobabble. I would say , typical of a fan of star trek ("capitain the fravity generator are failing" "scotty what's wrong ?" "the nitrogen compressor are disabling the dilithium crystal. It will tkae 4 h to repair" "make it in 2 scotty" "aye aye capitain").

Firstly You are assuming since the *true nature* (discutable) of gravity is escaping us, then there must be away to bend it to our will using some tech. This is exactely the same thinking as those theist with their god of the gap, but yours is the "technology of the gap" : whenever some point is obscure in science , you sneak in your magical tech bringing alien around the universe.

Secondely , that a gap does exists, does not mean that there is a way using the unknown knowledge in the gap to bend over and go beyond natural limits, like, the speed limit c. The best you can say is "unknown".

Thirdly, all this discussion is really worthless. The most basic fact that you cannot avoid, and I repeat a fact is that there are no scientific evidence *at all* of alien visiting earth.

But hey, sorry to attack your faith, you are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[dafydd]

It won't because science doesn't deal with trying to prove negatives such as this. One cannot prove that extra-terrestrial life does not exist anywhere in the universe, which is what you imply in your statement above. But how is that relevant to whether there is evidence of ET visiting this planet?

And why don't they land on The White House lawn instead of making crop circles,frightening people on lonely roads at night and anally probing rednecks? One answer may be that ET's have teenagers too.

 

[tsig]

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...)

You mean they're excreted?

 

[tsig]

Everything has a margin of error, including science, and science has made plenty of mistakes, so it's not perfect. Therefore I conceed that science, although a valuable tool when done correctly isn't always perfect.
I do not conceed that anecdotal evidence cannot be used to determine anything specific. To do so would be prejudicial and demonstrate bias.

As for being so certain about what constitutes "reality", science has no "objective" proof of "reality". Ultimately everything we believe to be true is filtered through our brain and turned into astract bio-neural representations of whatever existence itself actually is, and even that process isn't fully understood.

j.r.

Since you're not doing science or psuedo science none of that applies.

 

[Jono74]

Oooo ... nice slam .

j.r.

Well... Ive wracked my brain for possible explanations, and done my best with the info provided. I still have a few suggestons, however.

1. A big spirit-orb. Plenty of credible and sane people see these, and I think even photograph them also.
2. A small spirit-orb that you didnt notice flying behind you, and reflected in the window. I think this unlikely though, as you have proved yourself very discerning with pitfalls such as this one.
3. A local version of the Brown Mountain Lights, the Min Min light, etc. Many witnesses describe these to be similiar balls of light.
4. Focussed energy from the HAARP array. It IS up in that part of the world, for starters, and I think actual scientists have evidence it is capable of amazing things, high speed energy balls included.

I would suggest one of these would be more probable than an alien craft.

And just for fun, here is a silly one.
In 1974 hippy communes were everywhere. Its likely there was a big one behind that mountain, and what u saw was just a big discharge of new-age paradigm-shift energy.

 

[tsig]

If you think I'm wrong show us where science has proven the nature of the reality, and the proof of how we are conscious of it.

j.r.

Ah, the old 'we don't know everything therefore my woo is true' defense.

 

[tsig]

Why do you put scare quotes around words like "objective" and "reality"?

They scare him? They're like kyrptonite to superman.