UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Garrison]

So glad you find this all so entertaining! I told you ufology could be fun too !

But the problem is that to date the subject hasn't risen above the level of entertainment. So far all the field has offered are contradictory/preposterous stories and photographs that either show blobs or bad fakes. Please if you have something better stop worrying about definitions and share it.

 

[Akhenaten]

So glad you find this all so entertaining! I told you ufology could be fun too !

I've never pretended otherwise. It's the biggest joke on the forum outside of the bigfeets threads.

You're the one who wants it to be taken seriously.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I do have a question about this other video here though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dAsABIPmhM

I was thinking this might be explained as a rocket fired from the test range as seen with the kind of sensor and filters used in the camera, but constructive skeptical commentary would welcome.

Insufficient information. According to the video, it comes from Nellis AFB but from what I understand this is actually from Groom lake (i.e. Area 51). This could be some balloons or test aircraft of some kind. I see nothing that indicates it is an exotic flying craft.

 

[ufology]

I will do your link one better. This is an article written by Kingston George who was in charge of the BU telescope project. He says the story told by Jacobs is total bunk!

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/bigsur.htm

I have debated this with Robert Hastings and his research is less than accurate about the event. There are no records of any problems with the flights of Butterfly net or Buzzing Bee (the two candidate launches). Butterfly net is what Hastings and Jacobs state was the launch but the launch was after sunrise and the BU telescope did not have the capability to track the warhead in daylight (this was mentioned in progress reports). However, they did have the ability to track Buzzing Bee after MECO (main engine cutoff), which is what George states was the launch described by Jacobs. That launch was a sucess and there was no loss of warhead. In fact, records show that the warhead on Butterfly net made it to the impact area.

That means that Bob Jacobs is either a liar or he is mistaken about what was seen. I want to believe that he was mistaken but his memories have become tainted by UFO belief. He saw the event Kingston George described but he felt that parts of decoys were some sort of unusual event. BTW, he did not know what they were so they were "Unidentified Flying Objects" (UFOs) to him. For Kingston George, he knew exactly what they were so, to him, they were not UFOs.

Astro:

On first read it looks pretty reasonable. But there is also a third option that is missed in your comment above. I am not as familiar with this case as either the debunker or Jacobs or yourself, so I'm just going on what I've seen so far ( and maybe you might care to comment ), Jacobs says he was shown a "film" of an object he described as a UFO. The device used in the article however is an an image orthicon television camera tube, and its replay would normally be on a television monitor ( or at least I presume that would be the case from statements like the rocket was too small to see ... about 3 scan lines ).

So if what he was shown was on a reel of film, it may have not been from any of the launches he was aware of and was simply given a false identification for the film for security reasons. But even if it wasn't on film, the same situation could have taken place and it may be that Jacobs is telling the truth exactly as it was presented to him. Indeed, given that the information in the debunking article is accurate, and assuming Jacobs was telling the truth, an entirely different incident is the most reasonable explanation ... quite illuminating ... a good and and interesting read. Thank you again for sharing.

 

[ufology]

Insufficient information. According to the video, it comes from Nellis AFB but from what I understand this is actually from Groom lake (i.e. Area 51). This could be some balloons or test aircraft of some kind. I see nothing that indicates it is an exotic flying craft.

Astro:

I tend to agree with you on that. It's not a UFO. But perhaps you might be able to comment on the camera. It looks like it is some kind of night vision camera with some time, range finding and another readout, possibly a level meter ( the wavy line ). What's your take?

 

[Astrophotographer]

So if what he was shown was on a reel of film, it may have not been from any of the launches he was aware of and was simply given a false identification for the film for security reasons. But even if it wasn't on film, the same situation could have taken place and it may be that Jacobs is telling the truth exactly as it was presented to him. Indeed, given that the information in the debunking article is accurate, and assuming Jacobs was telling the truth, an entirely different incident is the most reasonable explanation ... quite illuminating ... a good and and interesting read. Thank you again for sharing.

The problem with that theory is that Jacobs states the film he saw was from a morning atlas launch taken by the BU telescope. The BU telescope was only employed at Big Sur for a short period. During that period there were only two launches. Butterfly net and Buzzing bee. So, it had to be one of the two. Records show that both were successful launches and no warhead was lost.

 

[ufology]

But dishonestly skipping over the 1966 definition of UFO, even after it had been explained to you ... bla bla bla

I commented on the later USAF definition as well pointing out the clauses you missed where aircraft or objects resembling aircraft do not fall under the definition of UFO. Weren't paying attention? I only ask that because if you were paying attention, then you'd have to be fabricating that bit about me up there, which would make you ... um ... what I wonder? Several words come to mind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I commented on the .. bla bla bla

Have you yet pointed out where the 1966 definition says that all UFOs are non-mundane? You've been asked for it several times now. Why do you continue to grasp at the 1958 outdated definition?

Weren't... bla bla bla

Weren't you paying attention? It's been pointed out that the 1966 definition eliminates some obviously mundane explanations that didn't need to be reported as UFOs. From that you dishonestly say that that means that the USAF says that all UFOs are non-mundane. Where in the definition does it say that all UFOs are non-mundane? Can you link to the post where you pointed that out since you've been asked so many times? You wouldn't want to continue to be thought of as a ... well, you know.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Astro:

I tend to agree with you on that. It's not a UFO. But perhaps you might be able to comment on the camera. It looks like it is some kind of night vision camera with some time, range finding and another readout, possibly a level meter ( the wavy line ). What's your take?

No, you are incorrect. It is definitely a UFO. Why would you think otherwise? Unless you've positively identified it? No?

 

[Paul2]

Ufology, do you have enough evidence that would allow us to conclude that a sighting of something in the sky was alien or extraterrestrial?

Yes or no?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro:

I tend to agree with you on that. It's not a UFO. But perhaps you might be able to comment on the camera. It looks like it is some kind of night vision camera with some time, range finding and another readout, possibly a level meter ( the wavy line ). What's your take?

Not sure if it is night vision or not. The bottom signal may be a radar return or something else. However, at the top are values that may have meaning. The azimuth and elevation values are given (az from 218 to 294 and El 01 to 39). The range value seems to go from 6,000-9,000 m. This all happens in 3 minutes. This is a very crude estimate but that is something like 9,000 m in a little over 3minutes or about 100 mph. This assumes the values are being interpreted correctly (especially the range values). The speed seems to indicate it is not propelled by the wind but the object is not moving at some exotic speed. Considering the location, I would not be surprised if it was some sort of test vehicle of some kind. The shape is odd but when testing things like surveillance craft, it would not be unusual for them to use exotic shapes. This is all speculation. We have no true provenance for the video with real technical knowledge on the matter.

 

[Belgian thought]

So glad you find this all so entertaining! I told you ufology could be fun too !

No just sad. ...

 

[ufology]

The problem with that theory is that Jacobs states the film he saw was from a morning atlas launch taken by the BU telescope. The BU telescope was only employed at Big Sur for a short period. During that period there were only two launches. Butterfly net and Buzzing bee. So, it had to be one of the two. Records show that both were successful launches and no warhead was lost.

Actually what Jacobs maintains is that he was taken to a room and shown a film. In another video ( below ), he says it was a 16mm film. He also says he recognized it as the shot he had taken the day before. But these tests would all look pretty much the same and it could have been easy to simply presume it was of the same event. The other thing is that in the video below he talks about the decoy and makes no mention of the missile going out of control. This seems to be a change from his earlier reports where he says the "warhead tumbled out of space". Space is about 73 miles up ( as I'm sure you are aware ). Did the tests go to that altitude? I'm not sure ... certainly the Altlas rocket could go that high, but it may have also been a simple poor choice of words. So we can't really be sure Jacobs was watching the event he thinks he was.

Lastly, apparently the Major who showed him the film ( Mansmann ) confirmed the story to reporters some years later, and there seemed to be some uncertainty about the outcome of the test in question as well.

NICAP story: http://www.nicap.org/bigsur1.htm

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=273jcsMQu3M

 

[ufology]

Ufology, do you have enough evidence that would allow us to conclude that a sighting of something in the sky was alien or extraterrestrial?

Yes or no?

Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research. Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Lastly, apparently the Major who showed him the film ( Mansmann ) confirmed the story to reporters some years later, and there seemed to be some uncertainty about the outcome of the test in question as well.

The records from Kwajalein and Vandenberg for Butterfly net and Buzzing Bee state the warheads made it to the target area. The problem with these UFO sites is they rely on the testimony and not the records from the time period. Do you have any records that show otherwise?

EDIT: Kingston George discusses this in another article that is here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/buzzing_bee_missile_mythology_flies_again/

 

[Garrison]

Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research. Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?

Why not just present the best you have and see how it goes? What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research.

There isn't an evidence part of thread.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?

Lightning? Hmm . . .

Why not compare apples with apples and make it as good as the evidence that I'm sure we're all willing to accept for the Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research.

I know I'm itching to see any evidence in this thread of aliens in flying saucers.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?

Context is important here, which you seemed to have missed. Do you have any evidence that would allow us to conclude that one UFO is extraterrestrial and another is not?

 

[Jocce]

So glad you find this all so entertaining! I told you ufology could be fun too !

I'd find it entertaining too if I could get a reply on my questions. But like Rramjet, you play the ignore game when you fail to come up with a plausible sounding answer.

 

[Robrob]

You want "evidence?" I've got your evidence right here. We've been fighting them since 1994 and you sheeple won't pay attention!