UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

And, as I asked originally, what landmark did you use to calculate the 25Km distance?

Just a reminder:

Good questions. I should probably post all these details on my site, but for now, I'll try my best to answer the individual questions...

Yes, it might help you get your story straight.

But since these memories are over 37 years old, it is not surprising that you have them muddled between your posts here and the posting on your website.

To Whit.

You should pay more attention: I actually said, "I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy." It was released in 1973. You're thinking of the song Houses Of The Holy from physical Grafiti.
j.r..

You should check the facts before you lay into someone about paying attention.

Of course, this is a classic example of a person's memory being infallible, but insisting that they have perfect recall.

The memory from your website:

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
The three of us were sitting together on the couch in the dark looking out the picture window and listening to Led Zeppelin Two.

So what was it? The 1969 Zep II or the 1973 Houses of the Holy?

Another:

...The object rose about 300 feet before accellerating, and it went north and gained altitude as it went,...

And the website version

...It rose vertically to about 200 meters and stopped instantly.

In the website version, the object rose twice as high in the sky as your JREF posted version.

Such inaccuracy...

Last one;

Third: It was also much closer than 25Km when it first appeared, directly across the lake ( about 3 Km ). Here is a graphical representation that is very similar:
http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/Orb-01a.png

Which doesn't look much like the description of the the sighting as per your website recollections.

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs...

So which version of your account is correct?

The forum posting version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later, or your website version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later?

Arguing the details of this is about as useful as counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[Marduk]

And, as I asked originally, what landmark did you use to calculate the 25Km distance?

we covered this before, all his distances were off by miles
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7478229&postcount=10717
I did some more checking, the side of the lake that ufology claimed he stayed at is a nature reserve,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windermere_Lake_Provincial_Park
which doesn't allow housing
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/windermere_lake/

Originally purchased in 1961 (formerly known as Sunshine Ranch), the area was formally established as a Class A park on June 29, 1999. Today Windermere Lake Provincial Park protects one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian habitats along the western shores of Windermere Lake. Large populations of ungulates (white-tail deer, mule deer and elk) also use this area for winter range.

Park Size: 205 hectares

Special Notes:
Plese Note: This has no developed areas or facilities and there is no public access
Overnight use of the Park and open fires are not permitted..

so he's a liar, who picked what he thought was a remote spot to give his story an air of mystery

 

[Akhenaten]

And, as I asked originally, what landmark did you use to calculate the 25Km distance?

The 5,000 foot tall pine tree just across the lake, of course.

 

[Toke]

so he's a liar, who picked what he thought was a remote spot to give his story an air of mystery

At least that explains why he is so certain that he did not see a firefly.

 

[Marduk]

At least that explains why he is so certain that he did not see a firefly.

it aso explains why he wouldn't give the coordinates for his viewing location

My viewing location was on the west side of the lake about 3 Km from the LZ. at about 3000 ft. ( exact location witheld for privacy reasons ).
.

I'll reiterate this in case any one missed it

My viewing location was on the west side of the lake

Windermere Lake Provincial Park protects the western shores of Windermere Lake. Park Size: 205 hectares

This has no developed areas or facilities and there is no public access
Overnight use of the Park and open fires are not permitted..

 

[AdMan]

I did some more checking, the side of the lake that ufology claimed he stayed at is a nature reserve,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windermere_Lake_Provincial_Park
which doesn't allow housing
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/windermere_lake/

so he's a liar, who picked what he thought was a remote spot to give his story an air of mystery

To be fair, couldn't the house location be north of the park?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=50°26...&spn=0.124862,0.220757&gl=us&t=m&z=12&vpsrc=6

The marked location is the supposed "landing zone". If you zoom in on the map you can see Ruault Road on the western side of the lake, which may have been near where the house was.

 

[carlitos]

I hate to burst your bubble Marduk, but 205 hectares is only 0.8 square miles. That's not enough to cover the entire western shore of that lake (unless it's a super-skinny long park!)

Looking at google maps, there appears to be a subdivision directly on the west shores, up at the north end of the lake.

http://www.maplandia.com/canada/british-columbia/east-kootenay-regional-district/lake-windermere/

 

[Akhenaten]

To be fair, couldn't the house location be north of the park?

I hate to burst your bubble Marduk, but 205 hectares is only 0.8 square miles. That's not enough to cover the entire western shore of that lake (unless it's a super-skinny long park!)

Looking at google maps, there appears to be a subdivision directly on the west shores, up at the north end of the lake.

http://www.maplandia.com/canada/british-columbia/east-kootenay-regional-district/lake-windermere/

Indeed.

Landing Zone Aprox: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W ( within a few hundered meters & definitely east of the highway )

My viewing location was on the west side of the lake about 3 Km from the LZ. at about 3000 ft. ( exact location witheld for privacy reasons ).

The red line indicates the northern boundary of Windermere Lake Provincial Park
The blue line is 3 kilometres long​

 

[Marduk]

I hate to burst your bubble Marduk, but 205 hectares is only 0.8 square miles. That's not enough to cover the entire western shore of that lake (unless it's a super-skinny long park!)

Looking at google maps, there appears to be a subdivision directly on the west shores, up at the north end of the lake.

http://www.maplandia.com/canada/british-columbia/east-kootenay-regional-district/lake-windermere/

he already gave a rough approx of his location
it wasn't near the north end of the lake

when you're out there the bench rises up from the lake and over to the highway, and the rise up to the mountain continues on the other side of the highway. So from my perspective when verbally describing the location, the rise up to the foot of the mountain is the whole part between the highway and where the foot is ( your eastern mark ).

j.r.

see the green tree, thats the park marker

 

[John Albert]

ufology goes out of his way to try to shoehorn a particular USAF definition used in the late 1950s to assign a sub-category to UFO sightings

Yes, that is dishonest. The deceit is also obvious, because Puddle Duck has clearly shown that J. Randall Murphy cherry-picked that definition out of all the "official" USAF definitions. J.R.'s cherry-picked definition is neither the currently-accepted one, nor is it the most concise, nor the most straightforward. There's simply no good, honest reason for him to have chosen that anachronistic, superseded definition.

Given his known M.O. with regard to argumentation, it is reasonable to conclude that J. Randall Murphy picked that particular definition because it defines the unknown in terms that he prefers, employing the same argument from ignorance that he's been pushing all along. It's a deliberate fallacy of dishonest redefinition; an attempt to bend the English language allow him to exercise personal control over the discussion

but one thing I don't understand with the premise that it was meant to eliminate terrestrial or mundane "chaff" is that the USAF would, as their mandate dictates, be interested in any potential violation of US airspace, not just those from Deneb IV.

If I was the military I would be just as interested in the more "mundane" sightings because they could involve foreign terrestrial airspace violations (as in Soviet). I would also be interested if my U-2 was spotted by Joe Sixpack here in the States because if it was then that means Vladimir Vodka bottle could see it over the U.S.S.R. as well.

There's a very mundane, bureaucratic explanation for why the Blue Book researchers (by 1958) actively sought to eliminate any objects with seemingly obvious explanations. It's the typical "somebody else's problem" attitude.

The USAF had other authorities tasked with reports of unidentified (mundane) aircraft invading US airspace, and by 1958, Blue Book's funding had been cut so drastically that their meager staff couldn't handle the volume of UFO sighting reports crossing their desks.

The period from 1958-1963 was sort of the "last hurrah" of UFO "believers" being in control of Blue Book, yet its business had deteriorated to providing a PR effort to deal with the profusion of UFO reports coming in. Understaffed and underfunded, they probably sought to stem the deluge of B.S. by redefining "UFO" to mean only those cases that have remained unexplained after initial screening. Hence the phrase, "should not be reported." They're basically saying, "if it's a weather balloon, an airplane, a searchlight, a star, or anything else that doesn't resemble a weird metallic craft exhibiting out-of-this-world performance, then it's not our problem so don't even bother us with it."

Note that this is largely speculation on my part, but it fits in very well with the history and the kind of politics that generally pervade government work.

 

[Akhenaten]

he already gave a rough approx of his location
it wasn't near the north end of the lake

see the green tree, thats the park marker

The yellow line on that map doesn't match ufology's description and coordinates.

The large cleared area NNW of the tree symbol is outside the park.

 

[John Albert]

Just a heads up for ufology:

This webpage is not available
Google Chrome could not load the webpage because www.ufopages.com took too long to respond. The website may be down, or you may be experiencing issues with your Internet connection.

It appears to be down for some clearly non-mundane unknown reasons. My money is on a U.S. intelligence agency.

That is possible, but I find interference from the Greys more likely considering how close he is to blowing their whole operation out of the sky.

I think his hosting company has a sudden, debilitating infestation of Gremlins.

 

[carlitos]

The page popped back up. I scrolled through and found a link to the odious Jeff Rense.

This is what I was looking for:

Skeptics

A skeptic is someone who subscribes to the philosophy that true knowledge of reality is unattainable. More generically, it is someone who tends to question the truth of things that are of a contentious nature. In ufology, the involvement of skeptics is largely that of criticism and debunking.

A skeptical approach is indispensable to serious investigation, but groups like CSI ( formerly CSICOP ) and the James Randi Educational Foundation ( JREF ) have been accused of sometimes ignoring relevant data and/or degenerating into mockery and ridicule. Ufologists have been similarly criticized and the tension has evolved into an "us versus them" relationship. Groups like USI hope to change this situation by appealing to the common desire of both sides to establish the truth.

One of the most famous skeptics in ufology was Philip J. Klass who proposed that many UFO reports might be explained as a previously unknown type of plasma produced as a by-product of high voltage electrical distribution equipment. Klass suggested that such plasmas would be consistent with reports of UFOs near power lines and might further explain the reported effects of UFOs on the electrical systems of airplanes and automobiles. However Klass was unable to substantiate the plasma theory, so he shifted his focus toward misidentifications and hoaxes. His debunking of the Travis Walton abduction case strongly suggests that it was indeed a hoax.

At least ufology, unlike Rramjet, doesn't defend the silly sci-fi fiction that Travis Walton wrote.

 

[John Albert]

Originally purchased in 1961 (formerly known as Sunshine Ranch), the area was formally established as a Class A park on June 29, 1999. Today Windermere Lake Provincial Park protects one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian habitats along the western shores of Windermere Lake. Large populations of ungulates (white-tail deer, mule deer and elk) also use this area for winter range.

Park Size: 205 hectares

Special Notes:
Plese Note: This has no developed areas or facilities and there is no public access
Overnight use of the Park and open fires are not permitted..

so he's a liar, who picked what he thought was a remote spot to give his story an air of mystery

To be fair, there's also this:

Originally purchased in 1961 (formerly known as Sunshine Ranch), the area was formally established as a Class A park on June 29, 1999. Today Windermere Lake Provincial Park protects one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian habitats along the western shores of Windermere Lake. Large populations of ungulates (white-tail deer, mule deer and elk) also use this area for winter range.

Were visitors allowed in the area prior to 1999 when it was established as a park/conservatory/whatever?

 

[John Albert]

The page popped back up. I scrolled through and found a link to the odious Jeff Rense.

That guy's hair is probably the closest thing we have to positive proof of alien life forms.

 

[Archer17]

...The period from 1958-1963 was sort of the "last hurrah" of UFO "believers" being in control of Blue Book, yet its business had deteriorated to providing a PR effort to deal with the profusion of UFO reports coming in. Understaffed and underfunded, they probably sought to stem the deluge of B.S. by redefining "UFO" to mean only those cases that have remained unexplained after initial screening. Hence the phrase, "should not be reported." They're basically saying, "if it's a weather balloon, an airplane, a searchlight, a star, or anything else that doesn't resemble a weird metallic craft exhibiting out-of-this-world performance, then it's not our problem so don't even bother us with it."

Note that this is largely speculation on my part, but it fits in very well with the history and the kind of politics that generally pervade government work.

Speculation or not it certainly sounds reasonable. My bad for not seeing the trees for the ufological forest in this case.


Seems that even with all that cherry-picking and the 1958 "definition" of UFO Project Blue Book still didn't produce the ufological Holy Grail. From the UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS AND AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK Fact Sheet:

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

Maybe it's time to pull out the cover-up crutch, eh ufology?

 

[Garrison]

Saucer-peddlers like to name-drop (the more letters after a name, the better) but no matter who they cite, the 'U' remains. Speaking of 'U's:

I had one instance (2 summers ago) where I saw something out my kitchen window that I couldn't ID. It was a white soundless "boxy" triangular thingie (from my angle of observation it looked more like a Goa'uld Tel'tak than an F-117) that was going at a decent clip west to east about 45 deg above the horizon. I saw it for about 7 seconds before it disappeared behind some trees. This much is certain: it was Unidentified, it was Flying, and it was an Object.

I'm thinking there's an acronym for such a thing... it'll come to me.

Nah, not a Tel'tak, probably an F-302, I mean you've got to be realistic about these things.

 

[Archer17]

Nah, not a Tel'tak, probably an F-302, I mean you've got to be realistic about these things.

You got a point.

What was frustrating about my sighting were the damn trees that bracketed the object's flight path. If not for them I would have had time to grab my trusty "UFO-Buster" binoculars.

[speculation]One of the things that made this qualify as a "UFO," it's silence (a Stealth Fighter would have made some noise), increases the likelihood that this was something like a balloon. If a balloon can resemble various animals I'm sure one can make me think of a Stargate prop. Hell, this could have been nothing more than one of those polyethylene shopping bags caught up in a wind gust.[/speculation]

Alas, I'll never know...

 

[Marduk]

The yellow line on that map doesn't match ufology's description and coordinates.

The large cleared area NNW of the tree symbol is outside the park.

nope, the park specifically encloses

one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian

that large cleared area is the park
see for yourself
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/map.html

 

[AdMan]

nope, the park specifically encloses

that large cleared area is the park
see for yourself
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/map.html

You can clearly see the park in the link I posted earlier.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=50°26...&spn=0.124862,0.220757&gl=us&t=m&z=12&vpsrc=6

The marked spot on the eastern side of the lake marks the coordinates ufology gave as the "landing zone". The house could have been north (ETA: NNW, to be more precise) of the park.