UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

I've found no reason to believe that the event did not happen,

And yet you find plenty of reasons to not believe any mundane explanation.
Mundane explanations (I may add) that have plenty of evidence supporting them whilst the story that you believe without doubt, it simply a story, with no objective empirical evidence to support it.

 

[Akhenaten]

The answers to your questions have been given many times, if you didn't listen to them or try to understand them when others gave them why would you do so when I do?

So again you avoid the questions and imply that I don't understand the answers that other people have given.

Pointing out that your questions have already been answered many time is not the same as dodging them, folo, and to say that you don't understand the answers is being way to kind. What you actually do is reject out of hand any answers that threaten to impinge on your personal alien and talking rabbit infested reality,

The fact is that I understand perfectly when I see people dodge questions, provide self-serving out of context answers, or engage in mockery, flames and ridicule.

What you don't seem to understand is that you, and Rramjet before you, have been flogging this same dead horse for well over two years. You should be grateful that you're getting any air time at all.

So why would I listen to you instead? Perhaps I had hoped for better. I suspect you are capable so why not give it a sincere try?

Do you really think you're far enough ahead on points that you can get away with condescension?

Really?

 

[Akhenaten]

Tell you what Robo, find me an example where witches have been tracked on radar and pursued by military jets and I'll start to take your witch analogy seriously.

I think you'd be needing to come up with some similarly tracked and pursued alien flying saucers before it would be analogous.

 

[Resume]

.

Lastly, our laws of physics don't explain everything and scientific instruments are also fallible. Science itself isn't perfect and there have been plenty of scientific errors and frauds to contend with. So it isn't wise to place science on so high a pedestal that it is deemed to be perfect. It's not. We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

What performance? Where? In movies? The mind's eye of ufologists? The fevered fantasies of same? Do you have some physical evidence that might be examined? Do you have one shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of alien intelligence and that that intelligence has visited Mama Earth?

No? You have speculation then.

That's what's in your sack, speculation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sure radar can pick up false targets, and pilots can misperceive. But that doesn't mean they always do, even when the situation is extraordinary. In the 1952 DC sightings you had a combination of radar, ground visual and air visual, where an F-94 pilot was vectored to a radar target, saw an object, closed on it, only to watch it suddenly depart at "phenomenal speed" far beyond the capability of his aircraft to intercept. During this sighting his aircraft was also surrounded and paced by other objects described as glowing balls of light. I've found no reason to believe that the event did not happen, and given the corroborative factors, I don't believe mere misperception explains it. I also don't see how any laws of physics are broken by this incident ... or for that matter how the existence of UFOs in general defy the laws of physics. Just because we haven't figured out how to replicate them or what they can do doesn't mean it can't be done within a scientifically valid framework. No supernatural leap of faith is required.

Lastly, our laws of physics don't explain everything and scientific instruments are also fallible. Science itself isn't perfect and there have been plenty of scientific errors and frauds to contend with. So it isn't wise to place science on so high a pedestal that it is deemed to be perfect. It's not. We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

Do you have a source or document for this story? How about the name of the pilot. I have seen comments made by other pilots (see Phil Klass' issue of SUN - I can find which one if you need for me to provide the specific one)from the time period who say no such thing happened. The Condon study never mentions this incident either even though they examined the events that transpired. Are you sure that this little story isn't part of a myth and you are simply repeating it?

EDIT: Ah...it was easier for me to find than I thought. It was SUN#52 (July 1998). Klass wrote:

In early 1978, I received a letter from John W. McHugo, former USAF pilot of one of two F-94 interceptors which had been dispatched to the Washington area on the night of July 26, 1952, to investigate the "radar UFOs" that had been spotted again by National Airport controllers. When the two F-94s arrived, they were directed to the locations of the unidentified blips on the airport radar scopes. McHugo wrote: "We saw nothing visually or on [the F-94's] airborne radar," which was designed to detect small enemy fighter aircraft. The second F-94 pilot, 1st Lt. William Patterson, who was flying at only 1,000 ft. altitude, reported seeing two or three lights that appeared to be at his level, but he reported they suddenly disappeared. McHugo said: "We were quite certain that Patterson simply confused lights from a ground vehicle with an airborne light. This is most easy to do when at low altitude. Lights from a vehicle climbing a gentle hill will get a pilot's attention..." Patterson's radar operator saw no airborne targets.

 

[SOdhner]

In the 1952 DC sightings you had a combination of radar, ground visual and air visual, where an F-94 pilot was vectored to a radar target, saw an object, closed on it, only to watch it suddenly depart at "phenomenal speed" far beyond the capability of his aircraft to intercept. During this sighting his aircraft was also surrounded and paced by other objects described as glowing balls of light.

That was a witch. I'm saying that right now, on the record. The single most likely explanation for that sighting is a flying witch - if you think there is a more likely explanation you will need to not only let me know what specific explanation you are proposing, but also explain exactly why it is *more* likely than my explanation.

 

[Akhenaten]

So now you are implying that witches explain UFOs? That's interesting.

How did you go about eliminating them as an explanation?

Shall I add that to our list of hypotheses? The FWH ( Flying Witch Hypothesis )? I'm not sure how many takers you'll get on that one but you can give it a try.

It's already doing better than anything you've managed to come up with.

If the experiences I've had in some of the new age and religious chat rooms are any indication, you can probably sell it to someone. After all there are believers in the Transports From Hell hypothesis so you'll probably get some takers.

Glass houses, olog. You're in one.

 

[Akhenaten]

<stuff and nonsense>

We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

We'll figure out how to create technology that we can't identify?

That'll come in handy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<stuff and nonsense>

We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

We'll figure out how to create technology that we can't identify?

That'll come in handy.

I think he meant that someday we'll have the ability to create oil well fires, Chinese lanterns and hoaxes like the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) HOAX.

 

[Toke]

What some of us have been implying, fug, is not that witches (with or without broomsticks) explain UFOs, but that - based on the evidence - the likelihood that witches explain UFOs is the same as, or more likely than, it being aliens (with or without saucers) that explain UFOs.

Have you only just twigged this?

It is a bit depressing if Ufology have not gotten the point of the witches before now.

 

[Garrison]

What I'm saying is that none of them tracked UFOs on radar or chased them in jets. If you want to talk about witches, go to the witches thread ... if there is one.

But if they were Unidentified Flying Objects, as everyone else bar you means by UFO, then how can you show they weren't witches. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object and nothing more, however much you complain and stamp your feet.

 

[ehcks]

That was a witch. I'm saying that right now, on the record. The single most likely explanation for that sighting is a flying witch - if you think there is a more likely explanation you will need to not only let me know what specific explanation you are proposing, but also explain exactly why it is *more* likely than my explanation.

I'd strongly prefer witches over aliens.

If it's witches, that means magic exists. Magic can do anything. The laws of physics? Magic tap dances on the grave of physics. Unaided flight by sitting on a broom. Turning guys into newts, and hoping they don't get better. Weighing as much as a duck made of wood. All awesome.

If it's aliens, they must have came here in some kind of generational ship to last the hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of light-years in distance between Earth and their planet. That just sounds boring.

 

[ufology]

Do you have a source or document for this story? How about the name of the pilot. I have seen comments made by other pilots (see Phil Klass' issue of SUN - I can find which one if you need for me to provide the specific one)from the time period who say no such thing happened. The Condon study never mentions this incident either even though they examined the events that transpired. Are you sure that this little story isn't part of a myth and you are simply repeating it?

EDIT: Ah...it was easier for me to find than I thought. It was SUN#52 (July 1998). Klass wrote:

In early 1978, I received a letter from John W. McHugo, former USAF pilot of one of two F-94 interceptors which had been dispatched to the Washington area on the night of July 26, 1952, to investigate the "radar UFOs" that had been spotted again by National Airport controllers. When the two F-94s arrived, they were directed to the locations of the unidentified blips on the airport radar scopes. McHugo wrote: "We saw nothing visually or on [the F-94's] airborne radar," which was designed to detect small enemy fighter aircraft. The second F-94 pilot, 1st Lt. William Patterson, who was flying at only 1,000 ft. altitude, reported seeing two or three lights that appeared to be at his level, but he reported they suddenly disappeared. McHugo said: "We were quite certain that Patterson simply confused lights from a ground vehicle with an airborne light. This is most easy to do when at low altitude. Lights from a vehicle climbing a gentle hill will get a pilot's attention..." Patterson's radar operator saw no airborne targets.

Astro,

A memorandum prepared for General Carroll dated 29, July 1952 by Gilbert R. Levy, Chied , Counter Intelligence Div. Dir, Special Investigations states:

"At 2320 hours, 25 July 1952, two (2) Air Force F-94s were dispatched from New Castle AFB Delaware, for the purpose of intercepting objects which have been sighted on radar. One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on the radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the "incredible speed of the object".

"The Director of Intelligence advises that no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained. Much of the publicity has been based on authorized news releases by the Air Force."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Further investigation of the above reveals that the F-94 pilot in question was Lieutenant William Patterson, a veteran of the Koren War and that in an inteview given to the press he described his encounter in greater detail, revealing that the UFO had not simply vanished as suggested, but in keeping with the intelligence report above departed at "phenomenal speed", subsequently vanishing from radar. He also reported that his aircraft was at one point surounded by these glowing objects. You can red more about that in the Wikipedia account. The case is far from being an open and shut case of simple misidentification.

So there are two inconsistencies. The intelligence report says that the UFO and the F-94 were tracked at the same time that the pilot was observing the object, and that both the F-94 and the object were going about the same speed. Clearly, if this is true, the object could not have simply been a car climbing some hill in the distance. The additional information provided by the pilot also indicates that the objects were closer than simply some lights off in the distance. Do I give these sources more credit than a debunker ( Klass )? So far yes. But perhaps you might be able to come up with some other info.

Thanks for your input.

 

[carlitos]

It's really sad that UFO's only happened with any evidence in the 1950's. The evidence will never, ever improve, and now that we all have camera phones, there are no UFOs to see. Pity.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Jabbering snipped. *] So there are two inconsistencies.

Then the alleged incident can be discarded as support for the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. The continued failure on the part of the "ufologists" to support their claim is noted.

So... For all the things ever seen which were initially unidentified, how many of them, when eventually identified as some particular thing, turned out to be alien craft?

Thanks for your input.

And thanks for yours. Unless, of course, you choose to remain ignorant.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So there are two inconsistencies. The intelligence report says that the UFO and the F-94 were tracked at the same time that the pilot was observing the object, and that both the F-94 and the object were going about the same speed. Clearly, if this is true, the object could not have simply been a car climbing some hill in the distance. The additional information provided by the pilot also indicates that the objects were closer than simply some lights off in the distance. Do I give these sources more credit than a debunker ( Klass )? So far yes. But perhaps you might be able to come up with some other info.

Interesting that you had a source but it is not unusual for witnesses to mistake lights as disappearing at great speed when they vanish. Klass quotes his wingman, who was there. Are you stating that he lied to Klass about what he stated happened?

 

[RoboTimbo]

<Cowardly dodging snipped>

Thanks for your input.

Answer the question, folo.

Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no.

 

[23_Tauri]

I'd strongly prefer witches over aliens.

You're my kind of guy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the "incredible speed of the object".

Indicates that the 'object' was an optical illusion.

There is no evidence that an alien spacecraft was involved.

Even if there was evidence, it wouldn't help you. Alien UFOs are paranormal, and therefore don't exist by definition!

 

[I Am He]

What I'm saying is that none of them tracked UFOs on radar or chased them in jets. If you want to talk about witches, go to the witches thread ... if there is one.

No one asked you that. They asked: "Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no." So why are you dodging like you accuse others of doing?



I Am He