UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps you can give me all the different numbers you've used. Let's see if you can admit the changes or are in denial.

So you're in denial and being dishonest about the different numbers and ever changing story.

The reason you're too embarrassed to address it is because you know everyone here is right. Your "self-correcting" memory is you changing the story to suit the glaring inconsistencies.

 

[John Albert]

Have you ever actually traveled by air, with the opportunity to look out of a window?

Mr. Albert

How about addressing the argument rather than the arguer.

It's a valid and relevant question. How about simply answering it instead of alleging persecution?

While you're at it, you never bothered to answer any of these other valid, pertinent questions:

we know this one report had been destroyed

We do? How do we know that? How do we even know that such report ever existed in the first place?

Are you proposing we accept a third-hand, unsubstantiated claim as evidence that a nonexistent, unsubstantiated, outrageously extraordinary claim (that US Air Force fighter jets engaged UFOs in a heated dogfight over the US capitol) once existed, and therefore should be accepted as evidence for itself?

how many more went unreported or were destroyed, or were directed to another layer of the military.

What good reason do we have to assume that any such reports ever existed in the first place?

Are we to just take it on wild speculation, based on the mere suggestion of a single guy whom the USAF once employed on payroll to study the UFO reports, who subsequently went on to make a living writing books and giving public lectures on the popular folklore surrounding these stories?

We know that Blue Book was the low level investigative section and in the end was nothing more than a facade.

Yet over all these hundreds of pages of discussion, you've constantly cited Project Blue Book reports as your main source of evidence for all your insistent claims that UFOs are alien spacecraft?!?

Could it be possible, maybe, that those UFO reports might have been determined to represent probable actual sightings of actual foreign aircraft that do represent a real threat, whereas goofy flying saucer stories can be safely disregarded as misperceptions arising from cultural fads and public hysteria?

Are you even aware of the very affordable and sophisticated telemetry, radar, and other tracking technology that's currently available on the commercial market?

Do you think NASA doesn't also have the capability to track satellites and other objects flying around in space? Or do you suppose those guys are also in on the grand conspiratorial cover-up?

 

[Puddle Duck]

I should have gone into more detail on the different models of the F-86. There were two basic variants produced each with different details.

The first variant was the clear air, air superiority fighter. They were the A, E, and H models and they all had 6-.50 cal machine guns. They were the ones with guns. The A model is the one you think of for the Korean war and the Mig-15 fights. They had a small gun-laying radar that fed range to the gun sight that was one of the large advantages we had over the Migs in Korea. The small black bulb on the top of the inlet was the antenna, and was fixed. The biggest problem the A model had was the horizontal stabilizer/elevator system that made the pilot use muscle to control pitch. The E model changed the pitch system to a slab or all-flying tail and made pitch control much easier. This one came online around the end of '52 to '53 and used in Korea at the very end. The last model in the group was the H model and was the hot rod of the bunch. It had an afterburner, where the earlier models did not. I think it also had four hard points so it could carry some extra ordnance in addition to the drop tanks (which added the designation of fighter-bomber), where the earlier ones had only two, which usually carried the drops. Finally the ultimate performer was the Canadair Sabre, which the US didn't use.

The other variant was the D and L models which had the large radome above the intake, had an AI radar, carried only unguided rockets (no guns), had an afterburner and was a pure interceptor. The difference between the 2 interceptor models was the electronics package. No difference in outward appearance.

In '52 the only models were the A (no AI radar-guns), the air superiority model, and the D, the interceptor model (rockets-no guns), of which were the ones of Ruppelt's story.

PD

 

[ufology]

I should have gone into more detail on the different models of the F-86. There were two basic variants produced each with different details ...

In '52 the only models were the A (no AI radar-guns), the air superiority model, and the D, the interceptor model (rockets-no guns), of which were the ones of Ruppelt's story.

Puddle Duck,

It seems you are right about the F-86H being a production model from 1953. But then I found this article on the F-86E.

"A total of 456 "E" Sabres were built with deliveries to the Air Force beginning on February 9, 1951. The new Sabre was first allocated to the Air Defense Command's 33rd Fighter Interceptor Wing by May 1951 ...

... The length was six inches shorter at 37 feet The height was nine inches shorter at 14 feet. Maximum speed was the same at 679 miles per hour at sea level with cruise at 537 miles per hour. The service ceIling, however, fell to 47,200 feet. The range increased to 848 miles, but the armament with six .50 calibre M-3 machine guns remained."

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v1286e.htm
​

I've also emailed a couple of F-86 aficionado groups to see if I can get some more verification. Of course there is also the possibility that the date of this incident is one of those things Ruppelt changed to maintain security as well. I don't see enough inconsidtency yet to write the incident off.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've also emailed a couple of F-86 officiando groups to see if I can get some more verification.

I hope you didn't sign the email, "Yours officianately".

Of course there is also the possibility that the date of this incident is one of those things Ruppelt changed to maintain security as well.

Mr Fology's Blunt Instrument™ - "When in doubt, add some more details to the story."
Dr Ockham is spinning in his grave again.

I don't see enough inconsidtency yet to write the incident off.

Relidgtious faith is like that.

 

[Robrob]

You obviously couldn't manage it very well, because in different versions of the story you have given three totally inconsistent altitude estimates, ranging from 300 feet, to 200 meters (roughly 656 feet), to the weirdly precise figure of 4608 feet...

 

[John Albert]

I've also emailed a couple of F-86 officiando groups to see if I can get some more verification.

I hope you didn't sign the email, "Yours officianately".

Maybe these particular aficionados are official aficionados (hence the name "officiando"), so their opinions carry significantly more weight than those of ordinary, unofficial aficionados.

 

[ufology]

You obviously couldn't manage it very well, because in different versions of the story you have given three totally inconsistent altitude estimates, ranging from 300 feet, to 200 meters (roughly 656 feet), to the weirdly precise figure of 4608 feet...

Robrob,

The 4608 ft. sounds like an altitude from sea level based on the Google Earth readings. I don't even know what quote you were referencing there. The 300 feet was just a bad estimate or typo I made in haste on one of the posts. The 200 meter estimate is still on my website and that is from ground level where it had landed. At some point in time I'll do a more precise estimate based on map disctances and angles.

As I've mentioned before, the horizontal distances were easy to establish using a map alone. The vertical height the object rose cannot be determined by such direct measurement. Have a look at the illustration I posted earlier and you'll see what I mean. Lastly the vertical distance isn't all that relevant to the performance characteristics I observed that made me certain it was alien. It was the horizontal movement ... the repeated precise figure eight maneuvers and the instant accelleration of over 25 Km in about 1 second.

 

[Akhenaten]

I should have gone into more detail on the different models of the F-86. There were two basic variants produced each with different details.

<polite snip of the good stuff>

PD

The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) Sabre was introduced into the RAAF in 1955 to replace the Vampire and the Mustang. (both locally manufactured as well)


The first model was the MK 30, and it differed from the US version in several ways:

• The installation of Rolls Royce Avon turbojet engines and modified air intakes to accommodate the larger engine
  
  
• Revised cockpit layout
  
  
• Increased fuel capacity
  
  
• Installation of two 30mm cannons under the cockpit instead of six 0.5 inch machine guns mounted around the nose.

The MK 31 was also introduced in 1955 and differed from the MK 30 mainly in having a solid leading edge wing rather than the slatted type. This wing was ultimately retrofitted to the MK 30s.

The MK 32 (pictured above) was introduced in 1957. Its main features were the fitment of an Australian-built Avon 26 engine and introduction of the 'dual store' wing with four hard points as you've described for the US 'H' model.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe these particular aficionados are official aficionados (hence the name "officiando"), so their opinions carry significantly more weight than those of ordinary, unofficial aficionados.

I've definitely got to get hold of one of those Ufology Redefinitionaries.

 

[GeeMack]

The 4608 ft. sounds like an altitude from sea level based on the Google Earth readings. I don't even know what quote you were referencing there. The 300 feet was just a bad estimate or typo I made in haste on one of the posts. The 200 meter estimate is still on my website and that is from ground level where it had landed. At some point in time I'll do a more precise estimate based on map disctances and angles change my story again.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ufology]

I hope you didn't sign the email, "Yours officianately".

Thanks for that. One of those times phonetics really missed the mark. Maybe the spell checker isn't such a bad idea after all. I just don't want to become dependent on them.

 

[ufology]

Fixed that for you.

Maybe you should just rewrite the whole thing for me GeeMack using your trickster God hypothesis. You do realize that making a mathematical calculation based on the initial distances doesn't "change the story" don't you?

 

[GeeMack]

Maybe you should just rewrite the whole thing for me GeeMack using your trickster God hypothesis.

One piece of fiction would be as worthless as the next when trying to support an allegedly true event. The biggest differences would probably be my concept is at least somewhat original and I wouldn't be claiming it's true, where yours is a retread of a thousand stories made up by a thousand uncreative alien believers and you've been trying to pass it off as true.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I've definitely got to get hold of one of those Ufology Redefinitionaries.

I don't want to overly concern you, but your avatar has become infested with saucers.

 

[AdMan]

It was the horizontal movement ... the repeated precise figure eight maneuvers and the instant accelleration of over 25 Km in about 1 second.

I think I've missed this--can you repeat or link to exactly how you calculated the 25 Km distance? I mean specific landmarks sighted and maps referenced to calculate the distance. Thanks.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks for that. One of those times phonetics really missed the mark. Maybe the spell checker isn't such a bad idea after all. I just don't want to become dependent on them.

What you really need to do is stop the mad dash to create the appearance that you're answering (in any meaningful way) all the points that people are making.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't want to overly concern you, but your avatar has become infested with saucers.

Aaaagh! My cartouche has been abducted!


I'll bet that particular phrase has never been uttered before.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Maybe you should just rewrite the whole thing for me GeeMack using your trickster God hypothesis. You do realize that making a mathematical calculation based on the initial distances doesn't "change the story" don't you?

The 4000ft was calculated by being two thirds the height of the mountain or something.

The problem is ufology claims to be calculating, but if you run a calcultaion three times you get one answer. The story, and a factor in it has changed repeatedly. Amazingly the maths alters in response to criticism. How odd.

 

[ufology]

I think I've missed this--can you repeat or link to exactly how you calculated the 25 Km distance? I mean specific landmarks sighted and maps referenced to calculate the distance. Thanks.

On Google Earth:

Landing Zone: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W

from the LZ above it rose vertically as indicated in my previous illustration and shot north up the valley. From my vantage point on the west side of the valley I was able to see the mountains on the other side well past Radium. Just use the ruler tool to draw a line inside the valley as far north as you can. You will see that a line of sight is possible for over 25Km, and you can see how the mountain peaks make fixed landmarks. It went past all of them ... past Radium ... past Edgewater and on towards Golden. I just use the figure 25Km to make it easy to get the point across. Besides, the speed is already so incredible what more does anyone need? Divide that distance in half if you want and it's still beyond anything we've got.

I don't have any really good photos looking north from where I was, but if you Google Columbia Valley and Lake Windermere, Radium, Edgewater. You can get a pretty good idea of the landscape. The illustration below in the next post is also from Google 3D view. It is pretty close in scale and location as was observed standing outside in the morning.