Highly Dubious USAF UFO Explanations.

karl 12

Noble
Yes the interesting thing is every time a longer study has been done it shows a residue of unknown anomalies, which remain so even after efforts of trying to understand them. Blue Book, Sturrock Panel, Cometa, GEIPAN studies, same things.


Good to see you mate, well said and think that aspect is deserving of a thread in itself - looks like the 'residue' could probably be more like 20%.


Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."

Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963



Dr Hynek states that about 20 percent of Bluebook cases could not be explained (great interview).


Historic Film Stock

The Amazing World of Kreskin (1972-1975) Show No. 43

Video Link



Researcher Kevin Randle on numbers:


"There are many such cases in the Blue Book files. Cases in which the solutions are simply not borne out of the documentation available. Yet we continue to hear about only 701 unidentified cases when the number is probably closer to 5000 when the solutions are examined carefully and those labeled as insufficient data are included. Insufficient data is not a solution, but is a label other than unidentified"

Project Blue Book Declassified - Really?



Researcher George Fawcett on numbers:


"I have found there are real objects under in intelligent control being seen on the ground and in our skies worldwide. The unknowns have varied over the decades from 22 percent in my own civilian files, 30 percent in the University of Colorda Condon Committee scientific studies, to at least 40 percent (recently revised) found in the U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book military investigations. This is not acceptable, no matter who is doing the investigations"

George Fawcett, UFO researcher (Ronald Story, Encyclopedia)

‘Curious George of UFOs’ devotes 40 years to study'



When it comes to Battelle Memorial Institute's BB14 actual unknown 20% unexplained rate (21.5% out of 3201 cases) then Ruppelt also describes the classification status below.


To be classed as an unknown, a UFO report also had to be "good," meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data..

USAF Captain Edward J. Ruppelt's "Report on Unidentified Flying Objects", pp.9-10



• USAF attempts to mislead the public on numbers.


This was a good report, but the Air Force deliberately tried to mislead the public. The report actually showed that 21.5% of the sightings were unknowns. However, the first page of the report contains the press release which stated that only 3% percent of the sightings were unknowns. (This only represented reports received in early 1955 and not reports in the actual study which covered 1947-1952.) The Air Force also tried to weight the report by removing astronomical phenomena from the study. This had an effect of showing that known and unknown sightings were more similar (using characteristics such as color, speed, number of objects, aerial maneuvers etc.) However, dropping astronomical phenomena didn't much difference in the outcome of the report, but it illustrates how the Air Force was trying to deceive the public. In other words the Air Force didn't appear to want the public to know the results of there own study of UFOs.

link



Ruppelt also discusses radar UFO tracking and 25% unexplained rate in this article.


ms5122b8c1.jpg


link



Also, not to go on about it but there's a 1949 Government document below sent to the Director of Intelligence entitled which it states that only 20% of UFO incidents have been explained.


Title: Unusual Incidents

ud50f1e551.jpg


To: Director of Intelligence, General Staff, U.S. Army

Authors: C. P. Cabell, Major General, USAF, Director of Intelligence, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations.

Date: February 23, 1949

Length: 1 page.

Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Reports that detailed investigations of all UFO incidents reported from June 1946 to date have been conducted and only 20% have been explained. "There is no tangible evidence which would support a theory that any incidents are attributable to activity of a foreign nation. The Air Materiel Command of the USAF is continuing investigations of each unexplained event."

link



Won't even bother with the Condon report unexplained rate (30% possibly 50%) but always seem to hear the 5% figure being bandied about by debunkers on cheesy TV shows when think it's fair to say the general consensus from official government UFO studies is far more like a conservative 20%.

Cheers.
 
How would you respond to debunker James Obergs essay, that the residue doesnt matter, as there will always be unknowns?

"The Failure of the 'Science' of UFOlogy" by James Oberg

I would at least say, that at the time that essay was written, there were just few public long term studies done and they were highly biased, influenced by Air Force etc. Condon Reports conclusion was pretty much predetermined. And like Friedman said, some of these are not unknowns due to missing data, its that they have plentiful of it but are still very hard to explain away, and the numbers have been skewed. Has this subject ever had a chance of a decent public scientific study, at least in the US, that hasnt been in the end politicized or unfairly ignored?

One commentor on Different Perspective website summarized this beautifully:

"There have been two periods where the government conducted an objective investigation of the UFO phenomena. The first was during Project Sign and the other was in Ruppelt Grudge/Blue Book period. The Condon study was obviously set up from the outset to be have a negative result. Otherwise the government has focused on explaining the phenomena away.

Even a skeptic should be asking the question: why is the government so opposed to an open objective study of UFOs? Why do they set policies designed to suppress UFO reports? Whatever one thinks about the phenomena itself, it can’t be denied that the government has a rather peculiar approach to this subject."

I think the answer is, because theyre hiding something. Duh...

I think its a time we do another one, especially considering what the navy has been reporting. And preferably a neutral one. Not expecting one, but seeing it happen would be nice.
 
Last edited:

1963

Noble
Good to see you mate, well said and think that aspect is deserving of a thread in itself - looks like the 'residue' could probably be more like 20%.






Dr Hynek states that about 20 percent of Bluebook cases could not be explained (great interview).






Researcher Kevin Randle on numbers:






Researcher George Fawcett on numbers:






When it comes to Battelle Memorial Institute's BB14 actual unknown 20% unexplained rate (21.5% out of 3201 cases) then Ruppelt also describes the classification status below.






• USAF attempts to mislead the public on numbers.






Ruppelt also discusses radar UFO tracking and 25% unexplained rate in this article.






Also, not to go on about it but there's a 1949 Government document below sent to the Director of Intelligence entitled which it states that only 20% of UFO incidents have been explained.






Won't even bother with the Condon report unexplained rate (30% possibly 50%) but always seem to hear the 5% figure being bandied about by debunkers on cheesy TV shows when think it's fair to say the general consensus from official government UFO studies is far more like a conservative 20%.

Cheers.
... Stan says it all.
... and ...In 1965, Oklahoma Police, the Tinker Air Force Base, and a local meteorologist using weather radar independently tracked four unexplained flying objects. Under Quintanilla’s advisement, Project Blue Book would claim that these witnesses had simply observed the planet Jupiter. The problem with this explanation? Jupiter wasn’t even visible in the night’s sky. “The Air Force must have had its star finder upside-down during August,” Robert Riser, an Oklahoma planetarium director, said at the time. A series of more badly botched scientific explanations eventually led to a congressional hearing.
The Third Kind: A Compendium of U.F.O. Encounters - Michael Ryan - Google Books
congressional hearing.

Cheers Buddy.
 

karl 12

Noble
How would you respond to debunker James Oberg..

Some good points you made there mate and really have tried to discuss this subject with James Oberg.

Certain factors really don't support his 'small residue' assumption and despite all the BS explanations which are never addressed, the missing hot reports which are never discussed and the official unexplained report percentages which are wilfully ignored I really get the feeling he doesn't want to know (or engage in sincere or objective discussion anyway).






• Didn't the Battelle scientists keep the insufficient data evaluations in a completely separate category Jim?

In summary, the UNKNOWNS were 21.5% of the 3201 cases which were evaluated.(not 3%) They were completely separate and distinct from the 9.3% listed as Insufficient Information, despite the lie told by Quarles.

link


• Also, it looks like all the scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute arrived at a very different conclusion.

In late 1952, Project Blue Book director, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, ordered a study of all the cases in the files for 1947-1952, under a contract with the Battelle Memorial Institute. The data were supplied by the Air Force, while the conclusions were those of the Battelle scientists. The Air Force issued the final report as "Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14." It was released in 1955, accompanied by an Air Force news release. Although the Air Force stated their own conclusion that there was nothing to warrant interest or concern, this was contrary to the conclusions of the Battelle study. The Battelle scientists had stated that of almost 2,000 reports that were deemed to have sufficient information to permit analysis, 22.8% were judged to be "unexplained," and another 31.3% were judged to be "doubtfully" explained. In total, therefore, 54% of the sightings were said to lack convincing explanations.

link


• I'm using the government's own figures - what are your thoughts on the Secretary of the Air Force lying to (and the USAF attempting to mislead) the American public?

hc5fe23af0.jpg


This was a good report, but the Air Force deliberately tried to mislead the public. The report actually showed that 21.5% of the sightings were unknowns.

Bluebook Lies





There are plenty more examples but he's not here to defend himself.

Will post this about the debunking organisation he's affiliated to though.


I earlier mentioned journalist Terry Hansen’s excellent book, The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up, which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to better understand how the type of information contained in my own book could have been successfully kept from the American people—scientists and laypersons alike—for so long. Regarding CSICOP [now CSI], Hansen examines the possibility that the skeptical organization was infiltrated early on by a small but determined group of U.S. government-affiliated operatives, whose true motives have far more to do with disinformation than skepticism. He writes, “[The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is an organization of people who oppose what they contend is pseudo-science...CSICOP, contrary to its impressive-sounding title, does not sponsor scientific research. On the contrary, it’s main function has been to oppose scientific research, especially in areas such as psychic phenomena and UFOs, two topics that, coincidentally or not, have been of demonstrated interest to the U.S. intelligence community over the decades. Instead, CSICOP devotes nearly all of its resources to influencing the American public via the mass media.” Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its “Council for Media Integrity” CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].

Full Article

Cheers.
 

karl 12

Noble
In 1965, Oklahoma Police, the Tinker Air Force Base, and a local meteorologist using weather radar independently tracked four unexplained flying objects. Under Quintanilla’s advisement, Project Blue Book would claim that these witnesses had simply observed the planet Jupiter. The problem with this explanation? Jupiter wasn’t even visible in the night’s sky. “The Air Force must have had its star finder upside-down during August,” Robert Riser, an Oklahoma planetarium director, said at the time. A series of more badly botched scientific explanations eventually led to a congressional hearing.


That's a great find right there mate - never even heard of that one. :)

Really does make you wonder how many of these incidents have been 'swept under the rug in a most disturbing way' - as described by Dr Mcdonald.

Looks like the original source material dealing with the Oklahoma sightings published in 'This Land Vol. 6, Issue 2' has now been deleted but there's a copy of the relevant article below.

It describes how Bluebook was 'highly criticized as a public-relations stunt to patronize taxpayers' (think that's pretty much spot on) and also mentions a chap witnessing a saucer shaped object coming out of the water:


On this same day, a man claimed that while fishing at Lake Hefner, he had witnessed a saucer-type craft emerge from the water, hover momentarily, and then fly away. The unnamed witness was reported to have been admitted to a local hospital in a state of shock.


Excerpts (in case of deletion) :


SAUCERS OVER OKLAHOMA

by David A. Farris

Saturday morning, July 31, 1965, at 1:05 a.m., Officer Lewis Sikes of the Wynnewood Police Department reported sighting a bright object in the sky a few miles northeast of town. He described the object as having a blue-green center, with a rotating light circling the midsection. The object abruptly rose into the night sky, where it hovered for a few minutes before it began to lose altitude and then move off to the north. The sighting was also confirmed by the Murray County Sheriff’s Office. Tinker Air Force Base picked up an unidentified blip on their radarscope at the same time as the Wynnewood sighting. The object was tracked at an altitude of 8,000 feet until it disappeared from their screen approximately 15 miles southwest of Midwest City. It was later learned that Carswell Army Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, had also tracked an unidentified object on their radar screen earlier that evening. A UFO had been witnessed by many people, including members of law enforcement, and tracked on radar by military personnel at two different air force bases; this was only the first night.

At the time, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was home to a small understaffed, underfunded office that was responsible for investigating reports of unidentified flying objects. Project Blue Book was established in 1952 in response to civilian reports of such phenomenon. It was highly criticized as a public-relations stunt to patronize taxpayers. Yet, America was in a cold war with the Soviet Union. A UFO sighting was more likely to be Russian than extraterrestrial, which was one reason such reports were taken seriously.

There were also civilian UFO organizations that conducted their own investigations within state or regional areas. In 1965, Hayden C. Hewes was the 20-year-old director of the Interplanetary Intelligence of UFOs. The purpose of the organization was the study and scientific research of unidentified flying objects. Members included scientists, astronomers, and others interested in the UFO phenomenon. Should police or media hear reports of UFO activity, Hewes was notified.

That Saturday, Hewes traveled to Wynnewood to interview Officer Sikes. It was a busy day for Interplanetary Intelligence of UFOs members, who received a wave of reported UFO sightings. On this same day, a man claimed that while fishing at Lake Hefner, he had witnessed a saucer-type craft emerge from the water, hover momentarily, and then fly away. The unnamed witness was reported to have been admitted to a local hospital in a state of shock.

By Sunday, August 1, UFOs were the talk of the town, having been sighted throughout the state. Oklahomans who wanted to glimpse one of these crafts were on alert, armed with binoculars and cameras. When dusk fell, saucer-watchers would not be disappointed. Around 9 p.m., Hewes received a phone call from television newsman Mike Buchanan informing him that the highway patrol had received more than 20 reports of UFOs en route towards Oklahoma City. Hewes drove to the highway patrol’s lookout tower that was formerly located along Broadway Extension, south of Edmond, near 122nd Street. He scanned the night sky for hours while reports of these strange flying objects came in over the police radio as they were happening. Tinker Air Force Base reported tracking four UFOs on radar at an altitude of 22,000 feet. The crafts appeared as they had the night before: very bright, multicolored, hovering, and then flying off at high rates of speed, sometimes making sharp, right-angle turns.

The earliest reported sighting near Edmond that Sunday night occurred east of town, about 10 p.m., when Wes Pitchford and his wife watched one of the objects as it passed near their home. They were startled to see the craft flying at such a low altitude of approximately a half mile or less. It was described as circular, about 30 feet in diameter, and with a dome on top. Mr. Pitchford said that the object first appeared on the eastern horizon, quickly approached his house, and then “whooshed on by, going west by southwest.”

Meanwhile, at the lookout tower, observers continued their watch without any luck. Until about 11:30 p.m., when a craft was reported north of El Reno and moving east, putting it about 20 miles west of the tower. Hewes, six highway patrolmen, and a reporter looked in amazement as a bright, multicolored UFO appeared over the western horizon, heading towards Edmond. Hewes stated, “It looked like a light source. Dominantly white and appeared to have a green glow around it. The UFO also seemed to be flashing red, white, and blue lights. It hovered over the area for about an hour.”

Officer Joel Cobb of the Edmond Police Department was on duty that Sunday night. It was before midnight when he heard over his police radio a general broadcast to watch for unusual flying objects. He soon witnessed “a brightly lighted object, which changed color frequently” over his house in the north-central area of town. “It appeared to hover briefly, then moved north where it hovered over Gracelawn Cemetery for several minutes.”

Officer Cobb and his wife watched the object until it suddenly “zipped away to the north.” Mrs. Cobb reported watching a similar object in the night sky south of town until about 3:00 a.m.

Edmond Police Officer Chuck Jones was also on duty that Sunday night and saw the strange lights in the presence of other witnesses. Their sighting was to the southwest of town and lasted for several minutes. Officer Jones explained, “It was brightly lighted—it was not a plane and it was not a star.”

The craft was witnessed by many Edmond residents before moving on to the northeast. This craft, or a similar one that traveled in the same direct, flew over Tulsa about an hour and a half later, where it was photographed before it continued on into Kansas.


Oklahoma was not the only state to experience UFO activity on that hot summer night. By midnight, the UPI wire service reported thousands of UFO reports from Dallas, Texas. Similar sightings were reported in Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

By Monday’s morning light, August 2, tens of thousands of people from seven different states had witnessed UFO activity. At least two U.S. Air Force bases had tracked the strange lights on radar at the same time they were observed by members of the military and law enforcement. Had American air space been invaded by a foreign presence? Questions went up the Air Force chain of command until they reached the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. The flippant responses previously given by government officials to dismiss such sightings would not work in this case. But, they tried anyway.

By afternoon that same Monday, the Air Force had solved the UFO mystery of the previous two nights. An official response from the Secretary of the Air Force Office of Information stated: “The initial study of the majority of reports received thus far would indicate that observations were astrological in nature. The objects most likely observed were the planet or stars Jupiter, Capella, Belegeux, or Aldeberon, which are clearly visible in the eastern sky.

“The time of the reported sightings and azimuth and elevation of reported sightings supports this conclusion. There were no aircraft scrambled in an attempt to intercept the reported objects.”

The lights seen blinking and changing color were explained as a natural atmospheric phenomenon called scintillation, the same effect that causes stars to appear to twinkle.

The Air Force response concluded, “The investigation is continuing.”

Robert Risser, who was then the director of the Oklahoma Science and Arts Foundation planetarium, emphatically disagreed. He told the Oklahoma Journal, “That is as far from the truth as you can get. Somebody had made a mistake. These stars and planets are on the opposite side of the earth from Oklahoma City at this time of year.”

Risser suggested that someone may have read the star chart wrong, or had it upside down. He did concede that meteors and a touch of mass hysteria could have accounted for some reports, then added, “But that still leaves a number of observations still unexplained.”


By Tuesday, local papers had begun their coverage of the previous nights’ events in what became a series of articles on the Sooner saucer sightings. The August 3 edition of the Edmond Sun reported the events of the previous Sunday night in a front-page article under the headline “Edmond Claims Share of Saucer Sighting.”

link

Cheers!
 
Some good points you made there mate and really have tried to discuss this subject with James Oberg.

Certain factors really don't support his 'small residue' assumption and despite all the BS explanations which are never addressed, the missing hot reports which are never discussed and the official unexplained report percentages which are wilfully ignored I really get the feeling he doesn't want to know (or engage in sincere or objective discussion anyway).






• Didn't the Battelle scientists keep the insufficient data evaluations in a completely separate category Jim?




• Also, it looks like all the scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute arrived at a very different conclusion.




• I'm using the government's own figures - what are your thoughts on the Secretary of the Air Force lying to (and the USAF attempting to mislead) the American public?







There are plenty more examples but he's not here to defend himself.

Will post this about the debunking organisation he's affiliated to though.




Cheers.

Yes im aware that Oberg is a member of CSI. That alone raises my eyebrow when i read anything from him, its coming from a biased position. When you hang out with such organizations, it affects you.

We have a similar organization here in Finland, its called Skepsis. Same methology, same kind of people, same excuses, same echo chambers. Not that many true and free open skeptics, but conservative skeptics, some pseudoskeptics, alot of uninformed, naive and straight up ideological debunkers. Shame, since they do debunk a lot of deserved BS too, but on this subject their willing to throw lots of babies out with the bathwater.
 
Last edited:

karl 12

Noble
Yes im aware that Oberg is a member of CSI. That alone raises my eyebrow when i read anything from him, its coming from a biased position. When you hang out with such organizations, it affects you.


Couldn't agree more mate and don't think there's anything wrong with being a genuine sceptic - it's been said before but if it wasn't for genuine scepticism we'd probably still be in caves cowering at thunder and lightning.

When it comes to objective study of unidentified flying objects and possible explanations then always really liked this quote from astrophysicist Bernard Haisch:


"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

UFO Sceptic.Org


And thought this was a great definition of a 'genuine' sceptic:


Skeptic:

One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.


As oppose to:


Pseudosceptic:

A variety of pseudosc the behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics.


Don't know if you're familiar with his work but there's a good presentation below by Terry Hansen (author of 'The Missing Times') dealing with UFO debunkery, deception strategies, precision propaganda and the cultivation of 'pseudo environments'.

Corporate media collusion also gets brought up and when it comes to propaganda assets and anti UFO reporting bias then there's some interesting info about how major news outlets like CBS, NYT etc. helped to support BS UFO explanations like Michigan's swamp gas case and organize anti UFO documentaries.

Also, when it comes to the Condon study, looks like not only was it being stage managed by the CIA but WW2 deception wizard Dr R V Jones also played an important behind the scenes role in planning.




Cheers.
 

karl 12

Noble

Yes that one's an absolute shocker. :)

Don't know if you've read this book mate but it comes highly recommended and deals solely with the government's own UFO documentation.. which doesn't really follow the BS line the were feeding the public.

The story, which is unmasked by the governments’ own documents, explains much that is new, or at least not commonly known, about the seriousness with which the military and intelligence communities approached the UFO problem internally.

UFOs And Government


The true number of actual unknowns could be a moot point anyway as Bluebook Chief Colonel Robert Friend once said that during his tenure there were 'classified intelligence channels for reporting UFO's that completely bypassed Bluebook' and government documents also exist which state that 'UFO reports that were a threat to national security weren't even part of the Bluebook system' (link).

Another important aspect of the cover-up is the October 20, 1969, statement by USAF Brigadier General Carroll Bolender, while reviewing Project Blue Book, with which he had no previous connection: “Moreover reports of UFOs which could effect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 and Air Force Manual 55-11 and are not part of the Blue Book System.” Two paragraphs later he noted “However, as already stated, reports of UFOs which could affect national security would continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedures designed for this purpose.” I spoke with Bolender and it was clear that he understood the distinction between civilian reports and ones which could effect national security. Clearly the sightings of most interest are the ones that could effect national security. Blue Book wasn’t even on the distribution list for sightings reported under JANAP 146 or AF Manual 55-11. I well remember the frustration expressed by Blue Book Scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek when I told him about the Bolender memo at a West Coast MUFON Symposium in 1979. He felt very used. But if they weren’t part of Project Blue Book, where were the important cases documented? Why haven’t we been told about them? Why does the USAF always respond to queries about UFOs by referring to Blue Book and the fact that it was announced as being closed in December, 1969?

Cheers.
 

karl 12

Noble
Good summation of the Condon report describing how John Northrop (founder of Northrop Aircraft / Lockheed Corporation) described it as:

"One of the most deliberate cover ups ever perpetrated on the public"

Also reports that he told an audience of the California Institute of technology that "The twenty first century will die laughing at the Condon report".



From 1:26:20



'UFO Theory Gains Support' - Star News, Pasadena California, January 30th 1973.

link
 
I cant even imagine where we would be now knowledge wise were it not for the Condon smear job. Someone has to answer for all of this, if it eventually all comes out. Its despicable. I agree that it will be one of the darkest moments of history of the 20th century, and will be put to future halls of shame hopefully.
 

1963

Noble
Of course these UFOs are not ball lightning, or sprites or earthlights. They are intelligently controlled objects that glow brightly, able to vent energy from travel in one particular direction --the same way they cloak themselves. They are quite large and operate in groups. in 2016 the MoD released files and drawings of UFOs from "Section 40". I noticed the UFOs I and others saw there, described as "row of manouevering lights" (see below).
When I first saw them they were in a row at a slight angle and were like bright glowing balls of silver, all confronting me in a row.
More here: The Brit government 'knows more about UFOs than it's letting on and has own Area 51'
View attachment 12590
More great stuff as usual Karl :Thumbsup: ... and of course we are well aware of the absurdity of 'official explanations' given by the authorities that are employed to be a hell of a lot more honest and serious than they historically have been! [and sadly in my honest opinion mate , no matter the enthusiasm that pervades the masses on social media about impending total-transparency from the secret-keepers ... it will always be such!.] .. love the Stanton Friedman clip on the 'Flatwoods Monster' ... if your interested here's our old mate Ivan's telling of his involvement in that case...
(188) The Flatwoods Monster Case - Ivan Sanderson's 1953 report - FREE MOVIE - YouTube

... And just to say that there really has been some truly witless and downright intelligence-insulting explanations churned out by not only the USAF , .. but authorities of all persuasions [Menzel's 'eye-lash-aliens' jump to mind] throughout the history of 'prosaic -and-logical-explanations-for-UFO's' .... eg.. The first known official investigation into a possible alien/time-traveler/UFO presence was carried out in Japan in 1235....“One night, a high officer named General Yoritsume and his army were settling down in their camp when they spotted mysterious lights in the sky. The general and his troops watched in astonishment as these lights performed amazing aerobatic movements, such as circling endlessly and flying in loops. Baffled by the bizarre aerial display, General Yoritsume ordered a scientific investigation of what he had just witnessed…The explanation Yoritsume’s scientists gave the general oozed with comfort and calm. “The whole thing is completely natural,” Yoritsume was told about the mystery lights. “It is only the wind making the stars sway.”:p

Cheers Buddy.
 

1963

Noble
Yes im aware that Oberg is a member of CSI. That alone raises my eyebrow when i read anything from him, its coming from a biased position. When you hang out with such organizations, it affects you.

We have a similar organization here in Finland, its called Skepsis. Same methology, same kind of people, same excuses, same echo chambers. Not that many true and free open skeptics, but conservative skeptics, some pseudoskeptics, alot of uninformed, naive and straight up ideological debunkers. Shame, since they do debunk a lot of deserved BS too, but on this subject their willing to throw lots of babies out with the bathwater.
Hi Spiff, the only thing that you have to know about Jim Oberg is that he is not a 'Sceptic' in the true sense of the word. He is in fact a 'Professional Debunker' in the worst sense of the word. I have known him for many years now and while I freely admit that the man has a real wealth of knowledge and intelligence, he is also not a man who's word I would trust without checking his given facts first. ... in other words he is prone to omission , misdirection and outright deceit in order to 'win his point' and appear to be an all-knowing colossus among feeble-minded-proponents. ... eg, try asking about his role in propagating the rumour of the Trent kids photographs proving that the McMinnville pictures were hoaxed. ;) .. it would be good if you could get an honest answer from 'Old Slippery-Jim' . :Thumbsup:

Cheers Buddy.
 

karl 12

Noble
if your interested here's our old mate Ivan's telling of his involvement in that case...

(188) The Flatwoods Monster Case - Ivan Sanderson's 1953 report - FREE MOVIE - YouTube


Very well said mate and many thanks for that Ivan video (off to watch) - also many thanks for that Japanese addition from 1235 - got to be the first ever example of a force fit debunk. :)

Below is another cheeky case example as reported in the April 7th 1978 edition of the Tacoma Washington News Tribune:


• February 16th, 1978 - Shemya Island, Aleutian Chain, Alaska.

Personnel at Cobra Dane radar installation report observing 'five round glowing objects which appeared to hover and zip back and forth at incredible speed' - unidentified targets also appeared on radar screens.


See 4:05




USAF Explanation:

Stars and planets


Cheers!
 

karl 12

Noble
I cant even imagine where we would be now knowledge wise were it not for the Condon smear job. Someone has to answer for all of this, if it eventually all comes out.


Again, very well said mate and one can only wonder about that - as well as Condon I'd say the Robertson panel also has a lot to answer for.

Following on from this quote..

The Robertson Panel, as it came to be known,, was hampered by men of Page's mindset and thrown off by the highly selective presentation of UFO cases by the CIA, charged one of the attending Air Force officers. "We were double-crossed," commented a Blue Book member. "The CIA (didn't) want to prepare the public - they're trying to bury the subject. Those agents ran the whole show and the scientists followed their lead.


..there's a nice clip below featuring Dr Hynek standing in the room where the Robertson panel was convened describing their unscientific debunking agenda for specific cases.


See 56:40



Dr. Mark Rodeghier & David Marler discuss the recent preservation efforts of the worlds largest collection of UFO case files, the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) archives.

Cheers.
 

karl 12

Noble
of course we are well aware of the absurdity of 'official explanations' given by the authorities


Know you like a bit of Ivan mate and considering he held close ties to British Naval Intelligence (and that Condon was heavily influenced by Klass) there's an intriguing statement below which indicates they might have had Condon 'over a barrel'.


"Ivan Sanderson knew Condon and the story was as you know that he was asked to do a 'job' or take the consequences of bring investigated for his past. Whatever the motivation he undoubtedly did a good job for his unseen masters"

Berthold Schwarz M.D.


Turns out (justly or not) that on March 1st, 1948 the House Committee on Un-American Activities Chairman J. Parnell Thomas issued a report which stated Dr Condon was..

"one of the weakest links in our atomic security.”

Condon was Oppenheimer’s assistant so it's also interesting that his passport was revoked just before an upcoming trip to the USSR in1945 and that in 1947 the Washington Times published news articles which probed Condon’s ties to organizations HUAC considered 'communist fronts'.


Science, Security And The Cold War


Suppose there was quite a lot of hysteria back then but also found it intriguing that Klass actially got his apartment raided and searched by the FBI.

As for Major Oberg it probably doesn't help his case that he was getting paid to publish his 'opinions' whilst failing to mention to everyone that he was actually on active USAF duty.


"I first became aware of Oberg’s “skeptical” stance on UFOs after he wrote an article for the December 1978 issue of OMNI magazine, in a column called “UFO Update”. A superficial review of Oberg’s comments in that article might lend the impression that he was even-handedly covering the UFO controversy. Far from it. A closer examination reveals Oberg’s subtle but persistent use of anti-UFO propaganda, not to mention his failure to identify himself to OMNI’s readers as an active-duty Air Force officer.

Fortunately, these tactics and omissions did not go unnoticed. In the following issue of OMNI, in a letter to the editor, Robert Barrow wrote, “C’mon James Oberg. If you plan to continue writing your skeptical UFO articles under the guise of proper scientific literature, please be fair. First, the OMNI readership should be aware that not only are you working with NASA but you are a U.S. Air Force officer in fine standing as well. In fact, while I knew you as Captain Oberg, I shouldn’t doubt you are now Major Oberg. As a former USAF staff sergeant, I can appreciate that and wish to congratulate you if you have achieved a higher rank...Your consistently skeptical articles are probably making some of your superiors far happier than anything you might write to the contrary...”[/size]

link

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

1963

Noble
Another one here that I wasn't sure belonged in this thread or the Police witnessed, EM effects on vehicles, radiation samples or the animal reaction one? ... The 1963 Wayne City Illinois Car Chase, that incidentally was investigated personally by no other than Lt. Col. Robert J. Friend (Director of PROJECT BLUE BOOK), Captain Hector Quintanilla (later the longest-term PROJECT BLUE BOOK Director), and Sgt. Charles P. Sharp. [so, must be a tad above the average claim then?] 1963, The Wayne City, Illinois UFO Car Chase, UFO Casebook Files
... in the end I thought it belonged here as the Air Force's 'explanation after their thorough investigation" was issued by Quantanilla as being....
"a refuelling operation" or the "planet Venus". :Whistle:
ufochasecar.jpg


Cheers.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Another one here that I wasn't sure belonged in this thread or the Police witnessed, EM effects on vehicles, radiation samples or the animal reaction one? ... The 1963 Wayne City Illinois Car Chase, that incidentally was investigated personally by no other than Lt. Col. Robert J. Friend (Director of PROJECT BLUE BOOK), Captain Hector Quintanilla (later the longest-term PROJECT BLUE BOOK Director), and Sgt. Charles P. Sharp. [so, must be a tad above the average claim then?] 1963, The Wayne City, Illinois UFO Car Chase, UFO Casebook Files
... in the end I thought it belonged here as the Air Force's 'explanation after their thorough investigation" was issued by Quantanilla as being....
"a refuelling operation" or the "planet Venus". :Whistle:
ufochasecar.jpg


Cheers.

Somewhere in AE a former member creepygreenlight wrote about refueling operation in connection with the Coyne helicopter incident and he made a credible case for it. Large low flying aircraft under the right conditions can appear might weird sometimes.

Also, the drum I likt to bang about EM effects on automobiles is the same; cars now are different and are as much a witness to the event as your Ring doorbell or some other gadget. Pity there aren't modern events in which the on site investigator thought to look.
 

1963

Noble
Somewhere in AE a former member creepygreenlight wrote about refueling operation in connection with the Coyne helicopter incident and he made a credible case for it. Large low flying aircraft under the right conditions can appear might weird sometimes.

Also, the drum I likt to bang about EM effects on automobiles is the same; cars now are different and are as much a witness to the event as your Ring doorbell or some other gadget. Pity there aren't modern events in which the on site investigator thought to look.
Hi PF, hope you are well my friend. :Thumbsup:… As to the Coyne Helicopter [Mansfield Incident] I can't recall that thread in which someone [creepygreenlight?] made any kind of compelling case [or credible as you say] for anything other than the ETH in that case... let alone 'a refuelling exercise' that for some prosaic reason managed to have the effect of looking like a
metallic, cigar-shaped object hung in the air “filling the entire windshield!”
and then
move up and to the west at great speed.
and then
dragging the helicopter up almost 2,000 feet “in a matter of seconds with it"
and then being able to also fool the several witnesses on the ground into thinking that they had seen the very same thing as the helicopter crew had seen. … Clever refuelling craft eh?... well, I suppose the powerful red and green beams of light that were seen by everyone [even a lady in bed a couple of miles away reported being disturbed by them streaming through her bedroom windows] were in fact powerful hallucinatory beams being tested by the mad boffins , … acceptable if you are of a bent that there is always a 'prosaic explanation to these things' … even if a little strange seeming?! … but not for me mate, … have another look at what you are willing to consider for an answer in need to reject the most obvious explanation … The 1973 Mansfield Coyne Helicopter UFO Incident - UFO Insight
… btw PF, are you saying that Quantanilla's "a refuelling operation" or the "planet Venus" is reasonable, and not A Highly Dubious Explanation in the Wayne City Car Chase case that I presented?... :Unsure:

… as to the EM effects on automobiles … I get what you are saying, but it's really a factor of UFO encounters that has been consistently reported on throughout ufological studies and not just a side note in 'some old cases'. There are dedicated collators and field researchers that have dedicated their careers to researching just this aspect of the genre. … here are a couple of them doing just that in a interesting 2009 ce2-case, they are Chuck Modlin, the Chief Technical Advisor, accompanied by Vicki LeBlanc. … Modlin has a lifetime of professional experience working with, among many other things, cutting edge radar, lasers, missiles, and telemetry systems. [so no technophobe eh!] and Richard Lang, who runs the STAR team [ Rapid Response UFO Investigation Unit that was funded by a special program within MUFON known as the SIP Project. funded by Robert Bigelow] … UFO in NY buzzes car causing electromagnetic effects - Openminds.tv
… Do you really think that these guys "wouldn't think to look"? … I think that they might just be efficient enough at their chosen vocations to "have thought" … could be wrong as always, but surely the guys that are paid to be 'up-to-date and on top of these things' .... are. :Thumbsup:

Cheers Buddy.
 

karl 12

Noble
"a refuelling operation" or the "planet Venus".
.


Ah thanks mate and what a debunk combo - yet another classic from Quintanilla whilst Klass and Menzel were working behind the scenes at Bluebook.. do you think they just pulled them out of a hat? :)

Have to agree with your comments about the Coyne case - also interesting that it occurred in the middle of a huge UFO wave in the area - here's how the Chief Pilot described the object.


"The object that I viewed that particular evening had a high degree of technology and was composed of a structure and a design that we do not have - the object could move through the atmosphere without causing any turbulence, it could move at high speeds below ten thousand feet and there were no vertical or horizontal stabilizers, no landing gear, no source of propulsion reflected on the craft - it looked like it could fly in space".



Below is a good PDF file from Jenny Ziedman containing scientific data on the case (it also examines the 'meteor' debunk by Philip Klass):


UFO Helicopter Close Encounter Over Ohio (PDF File)


Helicopter pilot Kevin Randle makes some relevant points below..


So Klass has solved the case by creating a meteor where none was reported, ignoring the flight of the light when it doesn’t conform to his ideas, misunderstanding the configuration of the cockpit controls that doesn’t fit his belief and his failure to understand the flight procedures of Army helicopter pilots. His analysis is badly flawed and his speculations are not driven by facts.

link


More info here from Kevin on Parabunk's recent theory that the object involved was an aircraft trying to refuel a helicopter (see comments).

Cheers.
 
Top