Highly Dubious USAF UFO Explanations.

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by karl 12, Dec 10, 2020.

  1. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401

    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.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  2. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    461
    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: Dec 15, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  3. 1963

    1963 Noble

    Messages:
    696
    ... 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.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  4. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  5. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401

    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:



    Excerpts (in case of deletion) :


    Cheers!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    461
    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: Jan 2, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  7. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    4,395
    • Like Like x 1
  8. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401

    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:



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



    As oppose to:



    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.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401
    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 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).

    Cheers.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    401
    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



     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    461
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page