• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course it's cherry picking...when YOU decide what you "want' to believe and ignore anything you don't, that's called cherry picking.


R.A.F.

Sorry but the above is a misrepresentation. I'm presenting the evidence for my side of the debate, what would you expect, that I would use the opposing side's evidence to support my position? Don't be obtuse. Using widely accepted independent and in-context sources is perfectly legitimate. Cherry picking would be using obscure out of context sorces and presenting them as though they weren't.
 
Thanks for those two links. I've googled for information many times and never run across them. I will add them to my notes. However after reading these debunking theories, the debunking case is not nearly as convincing as the MIG video debunking. This was a real incident and they were tracking something, but confusing each other with random noise and smoke stack exhaust just doesn't make enough sense for me to buy into it with any certainty.


As luck would have it, whether you 'buy into' any particular explanation for anything makes not the slightest difference.


Debunking Not Definitive


The lack of any flying saucers is though.


<yarp, yarp, yarp>

Just that the incident represents one of the best radar cases.


And yet there are still no flying saucers for us to reverse engineer and use to press home our attack on Mars. Bummer.
 
R.A.F.

Sorry but the above is a misrepresentation. I'm presenting the evidence for my side of the debate, what would you expect, that I would use the opposing side's evidence to support my position? Don't be obtuse. Using widely accepted independent and in-context sources is perfectly legitimate. Cherry picking would be using obscure out of context sorces and presenting them as though they weren't.

Add cherry picking to the list.
 
A couple of points to note. The radar in the F-16s wasn't some pimitive radar. It was designed to track other jets, and other jets have hot exhausts ... hotter than a smoke stack, which was assumed ( not proven ) to have been the cause. Certainly the smoke stack exhaust theory could be proven with further tests to see if the column of air rising from the smoke stack could even produce a solid radar lock on an F-16.

Besides, a huge column of hot air, it isn't going to show up as a discrete object and move the way the object did, and the theory that the movement was caused by the radar randomly jumping around picking up noise and interpreting it as the same radar lock doesn't make much sense. Neither does it make sense that the radar or the pilot would confuse the other jet with such noise.

You must be suitably qualified to talk with such confidence about radar capabilities, could you let us know what those qualifications are?
 
Debunking Not Definitive

Nor does it need to be. The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
hasn't been falsified. You may choose whichever mundane explanation you like.

Did you read what I posted to AstroPhotographer about the credulous conflating independant events?
 
Last edited:
R.A.F.

Sorry but the above is a misrepresentation. I'm presenting the evidence for my side of the debate, what would you expect, that I would use the opposing side's evidence to support my position? Don't be obtuse. Using widely accepted independent and in-context sources is perfectly legitimate. Cherry picking would be using obscure out of context sorces and presenting them as though they weren't.

The above is a blatant misrepresentation. The above pseudoscientist is dishonestly using an outdated and superceded definition of UFOs to further his dishonest agenda.
 
Since you seem to like the '52 DC "flap" so much care to reconcile the fact that there wasn't anything approaching a consensus among AF pilots as to visual description or whether there was even a "UFO" where that era's radar told them there was?

You're aware of that aren't you?


The DC sightings involved several incidents. Some involved radar tracking alone, sometimes confirmed by two separate radar tracking stations, and some involved radar/ground visual. The different times and the different aircraft mean different pilots were involved in different incidents at different times. So it's not surprising there was no consensus on individual incidents, because consensus would not have been possible to acheive given the circumstances. So that point isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that there was at least one incident when a radar target was visually confirmed by pilots and there was at least one such incident involving the vectoring of a jet to a target, which was seen by the pilot, who could not catch the object because of its "phenomenal speed".

In a newspaper interview, one pilot also reported seeing the objects around his jet and descibed them as glowing spheres.

For a long time I had not paid much attention to the DC sightings because they seemed to convoluted and the famous "lens flare" photo was the only evidence I'd seen. However after reviewing the case in more detail, and discovering the aforementioned details, it became apparent that there was much more to the DC flap than I had previously realized.

From E.J. Ruppelt:

"The controllers vectored the jets toward group after group of targets, but each time, before the jets could get close enough to see anything more than just a light, the targets had sped away. Then one stayed put. The pilot saw a light right where the ARTC radar said a target was located; he cut in the F-94's afterburner and went after it, but just like the light that the F-94 had chased near Langley AFB, this one also disappeared."

From Wikipedia:

"Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar pips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts (Peebles, 76). However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four objects then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared."

Lastly, although radar technology then was not as advanced as today's, it still worked well enough to perform air traffic control at a major airport, and there were two different tracking stations involved, including military rardar. So it's not as though the people back then used stone knives and bearskins. Radar had been used by the US Navy since 1940.
 
Last edited:
The above is a blatant misrepresentation. The above pseudoscientist is dishonestly using an outdated and superceded definition of UFOs to further his dishonest agenda.


The above is just more name calling and out of context commentary.
 
Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four objects then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared."
Oil well fires have been known to do that.

Lastly, although radar technology then was not as advanced as today's, it still worked well enough to perform air traffic control at a major airport, and there were two different tracking stations involved, including military rardar. So it's not as though the people back then used stone knives and bearskins. Radar had been used by the US Navy since 1940.
It's not as if the Mexican military uses stone knives or bearskins either. They were using FLIR and had over 40 years of technology advancement over the Washington UFO event.
 
Since you seem to like the '52 DC "flap" so much care to reconcile the fact that there wasn't anything approaching a consensus among AF pilots as to visual description or whether there was even a "UFO" where that era's radar told them there was?

You're aware of that aren't you?


The DC sightings involved several incidents.

:words:


Are we supposed to pretend to not notice that your post has absolutely nothing to do with the question it's pretending to answer?
 
Last edited:
You must be suitably qualified to talk with such confidence about radar capabilities, could you let us know what those qualifications are?


So if you can't attack the argument ... attack the arguer? That seems typical here. Nobody needs a degree in aeronautical electronics to know F-16s were not ( and for that matter are still not ) some primitive aircraft with unreliable technology. Even by today's standards they have performance ratings far superior to any civilian production aircraft.

Overview:

"The F-16 is a single-engined, very maneuverable, supersonic, multi-role tactical aircraft. The F-16 was designed to be a cost-effective combat "workhorse" that can perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much smaller and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics, including the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2."


f16e.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must be suitably qualified to talk with such confidence about radar capabilities, could you let us know what those qualifications are?


So if you can't attack the argument ... attack the arguer? That seems typical here. Nobody needs a degree in aeronautical electronics to know F-16s were not ( and for that matter are still not ) some primitive aircraft with unreliable technology. Even by today's standards they have performance ratings far superior to any civilian production aircraft.


Despite your bluster, ufology, the record now shows "None" as your qualifications to address the capabilities of the radar involved in the 1990 Belgian incident.
 
So if you can't attack the argument ... attack the arguer? That seems typical here. Nobody needs a degree in aeronautical electronics to know F-16s were not ( and for that matter are still not ) some primitive aircraft with unreliable technology. Even by today's standards they have performance ratings far superior to any civilian production aircraft.

Overview:

"The F-16 is a single-engined, very maneuverable, supersonic, multi-role tactical aircraft. The F-16 was designed to be a cost-effective combat "workhorse" that can perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much smaller and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics, including the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2."


[qimg]http://www.copyright-free-photos.org.uk/USAF/f16e.jpg[/qimg]

I simply wondered how it could be that you could argue so confidently on the subject. I don't think it is honest to make definitive claims as a layperson without citing expert opinion on such issues, and even then not speculating beyond what was said.

Nice picture and overview. Yep its a you-beaut plane, that's for sure. Are you saying the radar system is perfect and never gives false readings? If not do you know the kinds of problems there may be? Not being an expert, how could you rule these kind of problems out.
 
ufology said:
You must be suitably qualified to talk with such confidence about radar capabilities, could you let us know what those qualifications are?


So if you can't attack the argument ... attack the arguer? That seems typical here. Nobody needs a degree in aeronautical electronics to know F-16s were not ( and for that matter are still not ) some primitive aircraft with unreliable technology. Even by today's standards they have performance ratings far superior to any civilian production aircraft.

None.

But here's a pretty picture of an airplane and a blurb I copy/pasted from somewhere because I know nothing about that either.


Overview:


"The F-16 is a single-engined, very maneuverable, supersonic, multi-role tactical aircraft. The F-16 was designed to be a cost-effective combat "workhorse" that can perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much smaller and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics, including the first use of a relaxed static stabilityfly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2."


f16e.jpg
ftfy
 
Despite your bluster, ufology, the record now shows "None" as your qualifications to address the capabilities of the radar involved in the 1990 Belgian incident.


Again, if you can't address the argument, attack the arguer. And again typical tactics here. Quite sad.
 
The DC sightings involved several incidents. Some involved radar tracking alone, sometimes confirmed by two separate radar tracking stations, and some involved radar/ground visual. The different times and the different aircraft mean different pilots were involved in different incidents at different times. So it's not surprising there was no consensus on individual incidents, because consensus would not have been possible to acheive given the circumstances. So that point isn't relevant.

As Akhenaten pointed out, you didn't even address my point. My point was relevant as it addressed your erroneous tauting of eyewitness testimony let alone the credibility of this whole affair as a ufological 'smoking gun.' You did post " ...Combine this level of visual accuity with people whose physical health and limits are known by extensive baseline testing ( such as air force pilots ), and the probability that they accurately report what they see under favorable conditions is very high.." did you not? It doesn't matter if the visual inconsistencies happened simultaneously, the lore has 'em happening.

What is relevant is that there was at least one incident when a radar target was visually confirmed by pilots and there was at least one such incident involving the vectoring of a jet to a target, which was seen by the pilot, who could not catch the object because of its "phenomenal speed".

Remember how you told R.A.F. that you don't cherry-pick? The above is cherry-picking.

If you want to improve your credibility here and elsewhere it would help to know what you are talking about and recognize the flaws in your shtick (the above cherry-picking is but one example). The folly of hanging your hat on eye witness testimony is but one area where you can further your education. Another is radar. Look into it's history and examples of it's fallibility. Ask the Israelis how infallible radar is even half a century after this alleged DC "invasion" ---> LINK .
 
Last edited:
I simply wondered how it could be that you could argue so confidently on the subject. I don't think it is honest to make definitive claims as a layperson without citing expert opinion on such issues, and even then not speculating beyond what was said.

Nice picture and overview. Yep its a you-beaut plane, that's for sure. Are you saying the radar system is perfect and never gives false readings? If not do you know the kinds of problems there may be? Not being an expert, how could you rule these kind of problems out.


Proving a negative in a historical context is almost impossible. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to accept that the debunking claims have proved the positive, which was that the F-16 radars were so poor as to pick up smoke stack exhaust, lock onto it, and then confuse the movement of that lock-on with other noise and/or the other aircraft.

The fact is that there isn't any evidence that the smoke stack exhaust for which the radar was theorized to have locked onto could have been responsible because, to my knowledge, no tests were done subsequently using F-16 radar and the smoke stack exhaust to see if such a lock on could be repeated. Here we have a relatively controlled set of conditions that could be scientifically proven, but no evidence is offered whatesoever to substantiate this particular theory. So far as I'm concerned, because we have the means to prove the theory, yet no attempt was made to do so, the smoke stack theory is no more than "hot air".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom