Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-08-2012, 11:30 PM   #21
deca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 19,285
Likes: 1,071 (727 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiram View Post


Whatever you say .... good part is you agree its a foot print in stone.

And its stone or could this be wood ..... this should makes it some years old.


Do you ever followed the link & read the entire text?


Truly a Amazing world we live in!




Quote:
Types of Limestone Fossils
By Dannah Swift, eHow Contributor
Types of Limestone Fossils thumbnail
Whether it is found on the beach, in a quarry or on the side of the highway, limestone often contains fossils.

Limestone is a sedimentary rock, and along with shale, is one of the best preservers of fossils. Over time, sedimentary rock presses down around what were once living things to preserve the basic outline of their appearance and physical characteristics. Crack open a large piece of limestone or walk a beach covered with limestone rocks and you are almost guaranteed to find a fossil. If you don't find one, rest assured that they are there, lending the calcium carbonate from bones, exoskeletons and shells to the limestone itself.

Read more: Types of Limestone Fossils | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6006051_typ...#ixzz24E6RFSKe
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/
deca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 01:20 AM   #22
night_gaunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Void
Posts: 2,454
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

It really depends what you define as evidence.
There have been several well-documented encounters, the strange chemicals found (such as that on Bettie Hill's dress), mass sightings of UFOs, but most of this is discarded as lacking definite proof.
No one will ever say for certain whether aliens exist unless they see one face to face.
This is also the case with other topics of the supernatural...for example, i know people who will deny the existence of ghosts, which is utterly ridiculous to me because I have shared a house with one.
__________________
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to."
night_gaunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 02:12 AM   #23
deca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 19,285
Likes: 1,071 (727 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by night_gaunt View Post
It really depends what you define as evidence.
There have been several well-documented encounters, the strange chemicals found (such as that on Bettie Hill's dress), mass sightings of UFOs, but most of this is discarded as lacking definite proof.
No one will ever say for certain whether aliens exist unless they see one face to face.
This is also the case with other topics of the supernatural...for example, i know people who will deny the existence of ghosts, which is utterly ridiculous to me because I have shared a house with one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Quote:
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.
I like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Quote:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.
there is no dienialing people have "ghost" "haunting" paranormal experices....total believe in a lot of case these are real experiences/events....but believe there are many terrestrial based causes of them....."ghost" experinces caused by the spirit of dead people sorry I don`t buy that...again all you have to do is look at the strange effects of infrasound,EMF etc
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 22-08-2012 at 02:21 AM.
deca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 04:23 AM   #24
ufochick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma metro area, USA
Posts: 10,426
Likes: 207 (107 Posts)
Default

Deca and I have been round a few times on this but nicely around I think, huh Deca?

NO ONE knows or has absolute proof of who or what is doing things to people. There is plenty of proof that some intelligent Being or Beings are harming people. I myself have scars from them.

I think each person has to look at all the information and moderate the information with their memories and experience and come to a conclusion. Mine is I have no fucking idea who is doing all this shit but I have a great deal of trouble believing humans can do all of the things with technology they invented that I have experienced. I also have trouble with motive. WHY would the government invent greys, reptilians etc? If there are no ETs/IDs why make some up? To blame them? Why rape people? If they needed human tissue use the military, they have before.
__________________
Interactive STO social community for Experiencers.
Private domain and hosting, no gov. or corp. ownership or programs.
Use your real name or remain anonymous.
Profiles, hosting for files, pics, videos, PMs, blogs, social walls and much more.
ufochick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 05:48 AM   #25
i_am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 37,018
Likes: 1,300 (633 Posts)
Default

Perhaps the op should do some research on underground bases?

There is plenty of evidence. Proof? Only to those who have seen and experienced.
i_am is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 09:11 AM   #26
sanity
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am View Post
Perhaps the op should do some research on underground bases?

There is plenty of evidence. Proof? Only to those who have seen and experienced.
so that means there is no proof then?


you alien believers are just like christians who say well prove there is no god then.

cant prove a negative
sanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 11:55 AM   #27
king triad
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 10,477
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post
so that means there is no proof then?


you alien believers are just like christians who say well prove there is no god then.

cant prove a negative
The evidence is all locked away underground...it doesn't matter all the physical aliens are gone from earth...you debunkers got your wish .look no more aliens..If you don't think the US govt has proof then you are dreaming..Leaving proof isn't part of the advanced ets MO..they don't leave proof...How can you say there is no proof?..you mean no proof available to the public..have you searched the top secret NSA files?? or CIA??

Last edited by king triad; 22-08-2012 at 12:09 PM.
king triad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 12:17 PM   #28
sanity
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king triad View Post
The evidence is all locked away underground...it doesn't matter all the physical aliens are gone from earth...you debunkers got your wish .look no more aliens..If you don't think the US govt has proof then you are dreaming..Leaving proof isn't part of the advanced ets MO..they don't leave proof...
ok then where is the proof aliens are locked away under ground?

so no one can point to any real evidence of alien visitors?

the idea that humans adopted their skulls to match aliens is beyond even giving it more than a laugh.

extraordinary claims do require the most exratordinary evidence

some of the 'genuine' proof of aliens on video ive seen are nothing of the kind.the nasa ones make me laugh how people can think ice particles coming from the cooling fans is 'definate proof'
or the welsh police helicopter circling around a chinese lantern and the dumb bitch on faux news says 'well thats proof' easily explained why it looks like its moving so quick

even before the aliens get here they have got trillions of miles to travel.but we cant let science get in the way of a good story

i would love to think aliens had visited us but without any proof im with the nay sayers
no doubt there is some life form of a type,maybe just single cell stuff,maybe something that covers thousands of miles.who know,i doubt we ever will
sanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 12:23 PM   #29
king triad
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 10,477
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post

i would love to think aliens had visited us but without any proof im with the nay sayers
no doubt there is some life form of a type,maybe just single cell stuff,maybe something that covers thousands of miles.who know,i doubt we ever will
Why don't you understand the govt has the proof they just are keeping the public in the dark?..there has been an alien war going on around our planet since 1996..it has mostly been over since 2003..the grey and reptilian aliens have been defeated and are gone from the planet..
king triad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 12:55 PM   #30
tnt1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,453
Likes: 666 (398 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post
in this digital age we live why is there no close up photos or videos of alien space craft?
there are billions of people outside every day armed with phones and cameras.if they were there would there not be millions of good close up pics?
maybe there is a reason for that,because they are not there.
bit like santa,when you are little you believe it,as you wise up to the world you realise sant/aliens are not flying around on magic crafts

what about hard evidence,like an artifact?
if there was a court case on the proof of alien visitors it would be thrown out in minutes
No no they all have to be blurry and out away from you so you can't really zoom in and even when the military is involved and are able to get up close and actually touch the ship there are of course no pictures to prove any of it.

Something is there but it is very terrestrial in origin.
__________________
Rabbit Hole
tnt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 04:00 PM   #31
deca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 19,285
Likes: 1,071 (727 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ufochick View Post
Deca and I have been round a few times on this but nicely around I think, huh Deca?

NO ONE knows or has absolute proof of who or what is doing things to people. There is plenty of proof that some intelligent Being or Beings are harming people. I myself have scars from them.

I think each person has to look at all the information and moderate the information with their memories and experience and come to a conclusion. Mine is I have no fucking idea who is doing all this shit but I have a great deal of trouble believing humans can do all of the things with technology they invented that I have experienced. I also have trouble with motive. WHY would the government invent greys, reptilians etc? If there are no ETs/IDs why make some up? To blame them? Why rape people? If they needed human tissue use the military, they have before.
take a long look at the sordid history of torture , unethical human experiments .

Quote:
would the government invent greys, reptilians etc?
it's a black ops....its ileagal ....if you knew it was terrestrial an experimental human technology you would research this and then expose it and sue /persecute the humans doing it.(criminals do try to disgues themself to avoid being caught identified )

by disguisings as "aliens" etc you don`t question the tech....because its most be super advanced "alien" tech not some bunch of c**ts testing a modified see throw the wall radar,implants etc....

also if you can`t believe its humans tech....nobody else who's not getting attack with it is ether.....

again I must point out I do believe you are having an "alien abduction/contact" experince....but fear that it's not aliens at the other end , but humans with human tech....from them mind control experiments,developing RADAR,implants and wanting to build a smart "control" grind around us

again I think people would understand that there is a see throw the wall radar...also other tech infrared etc that look it people's homes and track people.....but what people don`t get is ...it ok Surveillance people CCTV,RADAR ,RFID etc in real-time ...but at what point do you want to intercept/target people in real-time? .......pretty much like the idea of fixing speakers to CCTV cameras so the operator can communicate to the person/s he is observing


 
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 22-08-2012 at 04:13 PM.
deca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 04:18 PM   #32
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

To the OP, here is one man above all and especially above anyone on an internet forum who was not only privy to very sensitive and above top secret military UFO files,case reports by military intelligences ect but who in the end admitted that SOME UFO reports after scientific investigation stand out as real cases of probable extraterrestrial origin.

Remember that those cases that defy any rational explanation after scientific investigation's as such was carried out by the man in question ,a one Dr J.Hynek who was a scientific consultant on the USAF UFO investigation committee under the name "project blue book" are pointing to a very real and highly complex technology that surpasses any known technological capabilities of that time.

That a man of Dr Hyneks experience,academical background and scientific credentials and credibility came out and admitted his change of perspective and stance on those UFO reports he termed ,"blue books unknowns" in which he came to no mundane explanation after investigation is highly important and needs to be included in any debate on those that think they are in any credible position to claim there is no evidence of off world manifestations here on earth or that there has every been on the evidence topic.

Dr Hynek started off a pure 100% sceptic and was employed by the USA government to debunk all UFO reports but like so many debunkers one finds they are NOT fully aware of those cases that really defy logical and natural or mundane explanations or are motivated by other agendas ,political or religious agendas springs to mind.They LACK any real knowledge of those cases that are stamped officially as "unknowns" and jump in when it would be better to learn to swim first or learn to walk before one tries to run.They pretend or attempt to show that its them who are in the position to claim "no evidence" but in doing so they are exposed by those who are in a better position of knowledge ect and that they hold no real credibility.

In the end it all boils down to who we think is in the most respected scientific and credible positions that we can listen to with any degree of believability, well Dr Hyneck fits my criteria and i for one hold is research as invaluable and one that most debunkers avoid like the plague or are completely ignorant about because they have rejected the real unknowns without every studying them.

I will leave with this thought below;

what if you did NOT want open contact and were just on an observing agenda, what if you possessed the technology that could make it possible and enable you to operate on an advanced agenda of a "stealth" observation agenda with no contact , thus thwarting any attempts of real proof that you were here.What if the real proof was right under ones nose, well read on.

one could also check this thread ,it goes in to a considerable detail of UFO cases that remain unknowns.
here for thread; http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1061007671

************************************************** ****************************************



Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports;

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting
General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects
J. Allen Hynek, Professor and Chairman, Department of Astronomy
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois
December 27, 1969;





Dr Hynek below gives us his views;

"My role here today is that of reporter; to report to you on my score or so years of experience with UFO reports (note that I do not say UFO's, for I myself have never had a UFO experience) and with those who make such reports, from this and many other countries. I was asked in 1948, as an astronomer then at Ohio State University, and thus geographically near the Wright- Patterson AFB, to review the UFO reports received by the Air Force and to determine how many of them originated from misperceptions of astronomical objects or events.

This consulting role continued across the years and gave me the chance to monitor the flow of UFO reports submitted to the Air Force, and to observe the Air Force handling of the problem as first one, then another officer took charge of Project Bluebook.

As reporter of the UFO scene, I am reminded of the old dictum of the reporter: find out Who, What, Where, When, and Why. I will have no difficulty in dealing with the Who, What, Where, and When, for that means simply dealing with facts - particularly with the incontrovertible fact that UFO reports exist, and that the time and location of the reported event is generally known, as well as the identity of the witnesses.

The "Why" I shall leave to other scientists, but I shall challenge their explanations if they are not conversant with the Who, What, Where, and When. I am very weary of pontifications by those who have not done field- or home-work, so to speak.

Indeed, I would like to say a word about scientific methodology as it pertains to this problem. I have discussed this at length with the noted Canadian philosopher of science, Thomas Goudge.

"One of the most interesting facets of the UFO question to me," Goudge writes, "is its bearing on the problem of how science advances. Roughly I would say that a necessary condition of scientific advance is that allowance must be made for (a) genuinely new empirical observations and (b) new explanation schemes, including new basic concepts and new laws." Goudge notes that throughout history any successful explanation scheme, including twentieth-century physics, acts somewhat like an "establishment" and tends to resist genuinely new empirical observations, particularly when they have not been generated within the accepted framework of that scheme - as, for instance, the reluctance to accept meteorites, fossils, the circulation of the blood, and, in our time, ball lighting.


History is replete with such examples. When the establishment does accept such new observations it often tends to assimilate them into the going framework - as, for instance, the attempt to admit the existence of meteorites as stones that had been struck by lightning.

"Hence," Goudge concludes, "the present establishment view that UFO phenomena are either not really scientific data at all (or at any rate, not data for physics) or else are nothing but misperceptions of familiar objects, events, etc. To take this approach is surely to reject a necessary condition of scientific advance" [1].

We will never know whether UFO reports represent genuinely new empirical observations if we continue the type of logical fallacy illustrated by the Air Force analysis of a radar-visual UFO report from Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1957.

Two witnesses in the control tower reported at 11:00 p.m. that an object, which looked (through binoculars) like a lighted, up-ended automobile, came within 200 feet of the ground when it disappeared behind a fence in a highly restricted area, easily visible from the control tower, then rose abruptly at very high angular rate and disappeared. It was observed visually for about six minutes, about half of that time through binoculars, and tracked in part by radar. The report of the Air Force officer who investigated this case, which is in the Bluebook file, states:

The two sources are Airways Operations Specialists with a total of 23 years experience. Both were on duty in the control tower at Kirtland Air Force Base when the sighting was made - both appeared to he mature and well poised individuals, apparently of well above average intelligence, and temperamentally well qualified for the demanding requirements of control tower operators.

Although completely cooperative and willing to answer any question, both sources appeared to be slightly embarrassed that they could not identify or offer an explanation of the object which they are unshakably convinced they saw. In the opinion of the interviewer, both sources are completely competent and reliable.

Project Bluebook explained this sighting as that of an aircraft; and gave the following specific reasons:

1. The observers are considered competent and reliable sources and in the opinion of the interviewer actually saw an object they could not identify.
2. The object was tracked on a radar scope by a competent operator.
3. The object does not meet identification criteria for any other phenomenon.

So, the witnesses were solid, the radar operator competent, and the object unidentifiable as any other phenomenon; therefore the object had to be an aircraft. Clearly, if such reasoning is applied to all UFO reports we can hardly expect to find out whether any genuinely new empirical observations exist to be explained. Schroedinger, the father of quantum mechanics, wrote: "The first requirement of a scientist is that he be curious; he must be capable of being astonished, and eager to find out." Perhaps he should have added, "and be ready to examine data even when presented in a bewildering and confusing form."

There is much in tile UFO problem to be astonished about - and much to be confused about, too. Such confusion is understandable. Over the past twenty years I have had so many experiences with crackpots, visionaries, and religious fanatics that I hardly need be reminded of people who espouse the idea of UFO's as visitors from outer space for their own peculiar purposes.


You will note that I say "espouse the idea," not "make UFO reports." Very rarely do members of the lunatic fringe make UFO reports. There are many reasons for this; primarily it is simply that they are incapable of composing an articulate, factual, and objective report.

In addition to being fully aware of the cultists, and how they muddy the waters even though they don't generate UFO sightings, I am also well aware of the widespread ignorance, on the part of many, of astronomical objects, high-altitude balloons, special air missions, mirages, and special meteorological effects, and of people's willingness to ascribe their views of such things to the presence of something mysterious.


These people, in contrast to the crackpots, are far more of a problem because they do generate UFO reports which represent a high noise level - so high, in fact, that many who have not looked carefully into the matter feel that all UFO reports stem from such misperceptions. In actual fact it is relatively simple for an experienced investigator to sort out and quickly eliminate virtually all of the misperception cases.

It is a pity that people so often are not well-informed, objective, and accurate reporters; since 1948 I have become only too familiar with UFO reports spawned by Venus, twinkling stars, aircraft, and the like. Some eighteen years before the Condon committee was formed I was already aware that the great majority of UFO reports are nothing more than misperceptions by the uninformed.

Of course, these misperceptions must be deleted before any serious study of the UFO question can begin. From this point on, I am speaking only of UFO reports which _remain_ unexplained by trained investigators; only then are we truly dealing with something that is unidentified by people capable of making an identification.

In short, an original UFO report must pass through a "narrow band-pass filter" before it qualifies as worthy material for scientific study, the objective of which is to determine whether any genuinely new empirical observations exist. Only those reports which survive the running of this gauntlet can qualify. An objection to this approach immediately arises:

Aren't we just rejecting everything but the tail-end of the distribution curve of human reactions to visual stimuli? I firmly agreed with this view (during my first years of association with the UFO problem, but now I question it. We can take the position that we are dealing with the vagaries of human perception only if we are dealing with a homogeneous set of observations. For instance, the distribution curve of fruit size in an apple orchard would have a significant tail at the large-fruit end if measurements of watermelons on the ground were included without noting the structural differences between apples and watermelons.

Let me define the UFO phenomenon, the existence of which we wish to determine or deny, as that phenomenon described by reports of visual or instrumental observations of lights or objects in the sky (or near, or on the ground) whose presence, trajectories, and general character are not explainable in verifiable physical terms, even after intensive study. The Condon Report furnishes us with many examples [2].

For years I could not accept the idea that a genuine UFO phenomenon might exist, preferring to hold that it was all a craze based on hoaxes and misperceptions. As my review of UFO reports continued, and as the reports grew in number to be of statistical significance, I became concerned that the whole subject didn't evaporate as one would expect a craze or fad to do. Also, the phenomenon of UFO reports not only persisted in this country but in many areas over the world; if there were some worldwide compulsion to report strange things, why are only these particular types of strange reports preferred from the infinite universe of all possible strange reports?


The degree of "strangeness" is certainly one dimension of a filtered UFO report. The higher the strangeness index the more the information aspects of the report defy explanation in ordinary physical terms. An other singificant dimension is the probability that the report refers to a real event; in short, did the strange thing really happen?

And what is the probability that the witnesses described an actual event? This credibility index represents a different evaluation, not of the report in this instance, but of the witnesses, and it involves different criteria. These two dimensions can be used as coordinates to plot a point for each UFO report on a useful diagram. The criteria I have used in estimating these coordinates are:

For strangeness: How many individual items, or information bits, does the report contain which demand explanation, and how difficult is it to explain them, on the assumption that the event occurred? For credibility: If there are several witnesses, what is their collective objectivity?

How well do they respond to tests of their ability to gauge angular sizes and angular rates of speed? How good is their eyesight? What are their medical histories? What technical training have they had? What is their general reputation in the community? What is their reputation for publicity-seeking, for veracity? What is their occupation and how much responsibility does it involve? No more than quarter-scale credibility is to be assigned to one-witness cases.

If one now plots the strangeness (S) of a report against the credibility (P) of the witnesses - that is, the probability that the event happened more or less as stated - one obtains a diagram which may be called the strangeness-probability diagram.


An example of such a diagram constructed for some cases I have personally investigated is shown in Figure 4-1. Plotted points represent only those UFO reports, of course, that have passed through the misperception and hoax filter. Clearly, the most provocative and potentially important UFO reports are those in the upper right-hand region of such a diagram, representing reports that contain many information elements and have a high probability rating.

In these high-P reports, the witnesses were of such a caliber and the circumstances surrounding the reported event were such that we cannot discount the reported event. Examples of such information bits are craft description, motions that seemingly defy inertial laws, effects on animals, interference with automobile ignition systems, and visible marks on land. The Condon Report includes several such cases.

My long experience in personal contacts with witnesses who generate high-S high-P reports shows that all were trying to describe an event for which they had an entirely inadequate vocabulary - much as an aborigine lacks the vocabulary to describe a supersonic jet or a nuclear submarine. Whatever else can be said of the UFO phenomenon, it represents for the witness an undoubted event, and an event for which he was totally unprepared.

The majority of such witnesses, contrary to popular belief, were originally highly skeptical about UFO's. Suddenly they had an experience which affected them profoundly, sometimes traumatically. Faced with the experience of the UFO event, witnesses are generally perplexed and uncertain as to what to do about it. Invariably they attempt to explain it in ordinary terms and fail. Curiosity overwhelms them yet they know that they will be targets for ridicule if they report (they confess that they had often in the past ridiculed others).

Generally they first confide only in their own family, and often prefer to remain silent. Only those who finally report their observations furnish us with data for study.


Any serious investigator is aware that many unreported experiences must exist. Not only has a Gallup poll so indicated, but I frequently try the experiment of asking for a show of hands of those who either have had a puzzling UFO experience themselves or have heard of one from close friends.


I generally find that more than 10 per cent of the audience will raise a hand. But when I ask for hands of all those who reported the event in some official manner, I find virtually no hands raised. Judging from this and other personal observations, I would estimate that for every officially reported UFO sighting there may exist dozens that have gone unreported. As scientists we should be astonished that high-S high-P reports have been made in the past five or ten years.

What does a serious person with a valued reputation stand to gain by making such a report? Why do people go to the trouble of filling out questionnaires, of subjecting themselves to sometimes hostile inquiry, and of being the target of unpleasant attention?

The reason appears to be twofold. Witnesses have told me that they had not intended to say anything about their experience but they felt that it might be of importance to the government, or to science, and felt it their duty to report. The second reason is curiosity. They want to know whether anyone else experienced the same event, and whether the event has a rational explanation. They are visibly reassured when I tell them, if it be the case, that their sighting fits a pattern and resembles other reported sightings from various parts of the world.

What are the patterns of UFO reports? How can we classify UFO reports (after screening) as an aid to their study? Clearly, if each UFO report represents a unique happening, the UFO is not amenable to scientific study. Such a classification, however, must be free of any preconceived ideas as to the nature and cause of UFO's. Thus the classification must be descriptive; it should be similar to the classification of stellar spectra in the days before we had a theory of stellar spectra, or somewhat like the classification of galaxies today.

I have adopted a very simple classification system based solely on the manner of observation. Such a system tells us nothing, of course, about the nature of the UFO, but it can suggest a means of gathering further data. There seem to be four basic ways in which the UFO presents itself, so to speak, for human observation:

(1) as "nocturnal lights," the objects to which the lights are presumably attached being generally barely, if at all, discernible,

(2) as "daylight disks," when the UFO generally, though not necessarily, appears as a disk or long oval;

(3) as "close encounters" during day or night: these are sightings made at ranges less than 1,000 feet and often accompanied by physical effects on the land, on plants and animals, and occasionally on humans;

and (4) radar UFO's, a special subset of which is the radar-visual observation, in which the radar and visual observations are mutually supporting. These observational classifications are not meant to be mutually exclusive. Clearly a nocturnal light might be a daylight disk in the daytime, and both might become close-encounter or radar cases.

Let us examine each category. A nocturnal-light report offers the least potential for scientific study, as it has the fewest information elements and thus a low strangeness index. The nocturnal-light UFO can be defined as a light or combination of lights whose kinematic behavior passes through the "UFO report filter"; that is, it cannot be logically ascribed to balloons, aircraft, meteors, planets, satellites, satellite reentries, or missiles. The experienced investigator generally has no difficulty with the screening process here.

Years of checking enable him to filter these out almost at first glance. Of course, should a UFO choose to masquerade as a hot-air balloon or a photographic night-air exercise, there is no easy way of differentiation, at least so long as we are limited to observing from the ground.

If we had immediate reaction capabilities, and could dispatch an interceptor aircraft, then we could clear the matter up quickly, or perhaps we would experience what has often been reported in the past twenty years: as the intercepting plane approaches the light in question, the light either suddenly goes out or seems to take off and soon outdistances the investigator. In that event the report earns its place as a high-S high-P member of the nocturnal-light category.

An example of this category is a case I investigated personally, involving five witnesses, the senior witness being the long-time associate director of a prominent laboratory at MIT. The nocturnal light was first sighted by his son, who had been out airing the dogs. He came bounding into the house crying, "There's a flying saucer outside!" The senior observer picked up a pair of binoculars on his way out. He told me that he didn't expect to see anything unusual but was going out to see what the commotion was all about. For the following ten minutes he was engrossed in what he saw - the nature of the light, its motions, its hovering, and its take-off.


He described the light as having a high color-temperature although essentially a point source, subtending less than a minute of arc in the binoculars. The five observers were fortunately able to compare it to an airliner and a helicopter, both of which passed by during the observation interval, and neither the motions nor lights of these craft bore any resemblance to those of the UFO, subclass NL.

The trajectory of the object was plotted against the framework of the branches of a denuded tree. This observer was a good one, and his report included the condition of his eyes and those of the members of his family. The adult observers were both far-sighted and the senior observer wore glasses only for reading.

Incidentally, all my attempts as scientific consultant to the Air Force, to mount a serious investigation of this case came to naught. The Bluebook evaluation is "unidentified," but somehow this word is not a challenge to inquiry. It has been classified as "unidentified," and therefore the case is "solved": it has been identified as "unidentified"! So certain is the Air Force, at least publicly, that all UFO reports must represent normal things that they see no point to serious investigation. During most of the time I acted as their consultant I repeatedly urged immediate reaction capability and proper scientific investigation, but to no avail.

The second category, the "daylight disk," covers reported daylight sightings of objects seen at moderate distances. The prototype report runs something like this: I was driving along and there crossed over in front of me a shiny metallic disk. It seemed about 500-1,000 feet above the road. It came down fairly close to the ground, stopped and hovered with a wobbling motion and then took off with incredible speed, straight up, and was gone in a few seconds.

There was no noise. This category understandably has more photographs to support it than all the others put together. An example is the McMinnville, Oregon, case which the Condon Report lists as unsolved (Case 46).

A photographic daylight disk case was reported by three prospectors in bush country near Calgary, Alberta. I personally investigated the terrain, the people, the negatives, and the camera. Fred Beckman of the University of Chicago and I have satisfied ourselves that the images on these color negatives are real images. The terrain, the interrogations of the witnesses, and the sworn affidavit of the principal witness all lead me to ascribe a high SP rating to this case.

The published literature on UFO's has many photographs. Some are clearly hoaxes, but many have never been investigated sufficiently to rule out very sophisticated hoaxes. A hoax is all one has to rule out, however. For if the daytime photo shows any detail at all, aircraft, balloons, and so forth may be immediately eliminated.


The picture itself is sufficient to establish the Strangeness index; it is the credibility index that is difficult to assess. Proper interrogation, tracing of the processing history of the negative, microscopic and microphotometric examination of the negative, plus proper psychological testing of the witnesses to the taking of the photograph should serve to rule out all but the most highly sophisticated, expensive, and laboriously contrived hoaxes.


In any one case it is clearly impossible ever to state unequivocally that a photo of a daylight disk is genuine, but I would submit that twenty-five such separate photographic cases, each subjected to exhaustive tests, would allow us to say that the probability of a hoax in all twenty-five cases is vanishingly small.

Even this does not prove the existence of truly strange flying objects, but it should be sufficient to attract the proper attention of the scientific world. That, of course, has long been my position: that some UFO reports are worthy of serious scientific attention. Inherent in the sheaves of UFO reports may well be many doctoral dissertations for physicists, sociologists, and psychologists alike.

The third category of UFO reports, the "close encounter," offers by far the greatest potential for scientific study. Since a close encounter obviously offers a greater chance for observation, we can expect, and we get, many more information elements, and hence a higher strangeness index. Here the theory of simple misperception fails utterly in explaining reports of craft landing 100 feet away, of visible marks left on the ground, of animals and people visibly affected, and of automobiles temporarily stopped on the road. Either we must say that the witnesses were mentally unbalanced or that something most interesting actually happened. However, I am not taking sides; I am merely reporting to you what is reported all around the world, and by seemingly competent witnesses.

I divide the close encounter cases into three subdivisions: the close encounter, with little detail; the close encounter with physical effects; and the close encounter in which "humanoids" or occupants are reported. This latter subgroup, of course, has the highest strangeness index and frightens away all but the most hardy investigators. I would be neither a good reporter nor a good scientist were I deliberately to reject data. There are now on record some 1,500 reports of close encounters, about half of which involve reported craft occupants.

Reports of occupants have been with us for years but there are only a few in the Air Force files; generally Project Bluebook personnel summarily, and without investigation, consigned such reports to the "psychological" or crackpot category.

A prototype of the simple close encounter goes like this: Witnesses are driving along a lonely road when the driver spies a strange glare in his rear-view mirror. He becomes frightened and increases his speed, trying to outdistance the UFO, but he cannot. He stops the car and tries to take cover. Shortly the light rises and vanishes quickly in the distance. It is easy to say that such witnesses are mentally unbalanced, unless one must say it to their faces, especially knowing that they are respected members of their communities and hold responsible positions.

The close encounter with physical effects is the category that interests me most, since the reported effects on animal, vegetable, and mineral are potentially measurable. For instance, there are more than a hundred reports on record of UFO's that reportedly caused car ignition failures. In a typical case a bright light suddenly appears and seems to seek out the witnesses' car. As it stops to hover over the car, the car lights dim, or fail, and the engine dies. Often the occupants of the car report feeling hot and prickly. After a few minutes the apparition leaves, and the car returns to normal operation, but the witnesses often do not; their equanimity is temporarily destroyed.

Witnesses of such encounters do not readily submit themselves to interrogation. Often they tell no one for days, or they tell only very close associates. Eventually a serious UFO investigator conies to hear about it, and then the story unfolds. If they unwisely tell their story indiscriminately, their lives are made miserable by ridicule and taunts of unsympathetic friends.

Let us consider the probabilities in car-failure cases. On the road we occasionally pass a disabled car, its hood up, waiting for the repairman or the tow truck. We should regard it as odd, and of low probability, if the car were to heal itself after a few minutes and proceed as though nothing had happened. If we add that this event was accompaned by a very bright unexplained light hovering over the car, then I submit that the probabilities are extremely small.

And when we deal with dozens of such cases, we are driven to the conclusion that something most extraordinary must have happened. If we have in these cases what Goudge calls "genuinely new empirical observations [requiring] new explanation schemes," then we can anticipate an exceptional scientific breakthrough, although it may not be just around the corner.

In this twentieth century we may be as far from a solution of the UFO problem as nineteenth century physicists were from an interpretation of the aurora borealis. Even so, it is incumbent upon us as scientists to document and study the phenomenon to the best of our ability. But the present lack of continued scientific study still leaves it unclear whether genuinely new empirical observations exist. Even the Condon Report left unexplained about one-quarter of the cases examined.

The fourth observational category contains those UFO reports involving radar. There are many reports in this category from responsible persons, such as pilots and control tower operators. I have paid little attention to the radar cases, since I am not a radar expert. The expert on Project Bluebook invariably ascribed all radar cases to malfunction or to anomalous propagation.[*] The Condon Report, however, contains the following remark about one such case:

"This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record and no conclusion is possible at this time. It seems inconceivable that an anomalous propagation echo would behave in the manner described, even if anomalous propagation had been likely at the time" [3]. Radar-visual cases offer more scope for study. The Lakenheath case (see Chapter 5, Appendix, Case 2), studied by the Condon committee, was left as unexplained with the remark, "In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files.


The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of the sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out" (p. l64). In actuality, a careful reading of the body of the Condon Report reveals as good a case for the scientific study of UFO's as could have been assembled by a group not initially conversant with the subject and with limited time and funds.
[*] The latter arises when meteorological conditions are such as to interfere with the normal straight-line propagation of radar waves, leading to erroneous interpretation of the radar results.

Some may be surprised that so considerable a body of UFO evidence exists. This is the crux of the problem: neither the active scientists nor the public have access to this information. Unfortunately, those who wish to learn about UFO's must get information from the "back fences" of literature - the pulp magazines, the sensational mystery or sex magazines. Until recently, there has not been in this country one scientific journal in which I could publish a well-documented UFO case, yet a recent bibliography of UFO literature ran to 400 pages. The UFO has become a problem for the librarian sooner than it has for the scientist.

Consider the plight of serious UFO witnesses. I know that such exist because I have interviewed several hundred. Where can they go to report? Only the most naive would report to the Air Force even if Project Bluebook had not been discontinued. To report to the local police is scarcely better. Many witnesses have told me of the ridicule they met when they took that path. Besides, I have seen many police blotters. UFO reports are entered as "complaints."

The witness, if he wishes to report, must seek out the relatively few persons or organizations which will lend a sympathetic ear. My own mail brings me very good UFO reports, generally with a request for anonymity, but I have neither the time nor the funds to make proper investigations. As I look back over my past twenty-one years' association with the UFO problem, I note that the intellectual climate today is enormously better for taking a good look at it than it was even a few years ago. This symposium is itself an example: it would have been impossible to have held it a year or two ago. And had I, earlier, attempted to call for a major investigation, I would have lost credibility and undoubtedly all possible future effectiveness.

In summary, then, my twenty-one years of monitoring of UFO reports has shown that reports of UFO observations remain after we delete the pronouncements of crackpots, visionaries, religious fanatics, and so forth. A large number of UFO reports are readily indentifiable by trained investigators as misperception of known objects and events. A small residue of UFO reports are not so identifiable.

These come from such widely separated places as northern Canada, Australia, South America, and Antarctica. They are made by competent, responsible, psychologically normal people - in short, credible witnesses.

These reports contain descriptive terms which collectively do not specify any known psychological event, object, or process, and which do not specify any known psychological event or process. And, furthermore, they resist translation into terms that do apply to known physical and/or psychological events, objects, and processes.

That is, as Goudge points out, translation would alter the meaning of the original report and hence effectively violate the methodological criteria governing the advance of science: namely (a) that it must be possible for new observational data to occur; that is, the existing conceptual framework of science, or the attitudes of scientists, must not rule out such new data a priori; and (b) the existing conceptual framework must allow new concepts, principles, and laws to be formulated to interpret and explain the new observational data.

Although I know of no hypothesis that adequately covers the mountainous evidence, this should not and must not deter us from following the advice of Schroedinger: to be curious, capable of being astonished, and eager to find out.

Notes
1. Thomas Goudge, personal letter to author.
2. E. U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam Books, 1969).
3. Ibid., p. 171.
4. Ibid., p. 164.
5. Lynn Catoe, UFO's and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography. Library of Congress, AFOSR 68-1656 (Washington, D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969).

link; http://www.cohenufo.org/Hynek/hynk_21yrs_rprts.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.

Last edited by jamesc; 22-08-2012 at 04:29 PM.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 05:14 PM   #33
sanity
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

people like neil de grass tyson have spent their lives looking upwards studying stars and the universe.
he has very strong views on alien visitors.im sure no one can say he doesnt know what he is talking about.he will also be in the circle of other people who look skywards and surly they would see these visitors.


id love to know how some of you think the us government are hiding aliens?
what about every other government or do aliens only crash in the deserts of nevada?
oh craft that are so advanced they can travel faster than light but still crash into earth
sanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 07:09 PM   #34
noobcybot
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,824
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post
id love to know how some of you think the us government are hiding aliens?
what about every other government or do aliens only crash in the deserts of nevada?
Watch the documentary series 'Secret Space'.
noobcybot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 07:46 PM   #35
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post
people like neil de grass tyson have spent their lives looking upwards studying stars and the universe.
he has very strong views on alien visitors.im sure no one can say he doesnt know what he is talking about.he will also be in the circle of other people who look skywards and surly they would see these visitors.


id love to know how some of you think the us government are hiding aliens?
what about every other government or do aliens only crash in the deserts of nevada?
oh craft that are so advanced they can travel faster than light but still crash into earth
Things malfunction no matter the advancement of nanotechnology and again if you really new the UFO subject you would have realised that there is a branch of study dedicated to it. You are taking this alien/ET visitation on the premises that these intelligences would behave like you,have technology like us and could be easily seen or detected .Have you ever considered that they could have advanced "cloaking" capabilities , stealth capabilities of an advanced stage??

And what about the argument that i put forward that they or the majority of those who have been here are purely on a non contact,observational agenda.There is a wealth of information from very credible sources that show that SOME UFOs are or could be off world in origins, the fact that they are not arriving with party balloons and lights ect points to a non contact,stealth like observational agenda probably based on scientific research.

It seems that most are willing to condemn or reject the notion based on ignorance due to a real lake of knowledge that there has indeed been men of scientific credibility like Dr Hynek and Dr James E MacDonald who have stated after years of research and privy to top secret UFO information that there is a real genuine mystery going on in the skies of the worlds nations and that these objects have free rain over countries restricted air space , entering and leaving at will some time tracked by radar sometimes not.


If you would take the time to seriously study or look at Dr Hyneks "blue book unknowns" and Dr James E MacDonald"s investigation's you would i feel see some of the evidence you so require;Venture down the rabbit hole of this subject and you will see that evidence comes in a variety of disguises and usually right under ones nose.

Points to remember;
1;No direct open contact.
2;Observational/scientific agenda;
3;Stealth capabilities to remain undetected.
4;Possible attempted direct contact made in the 50s with USA governmental and military intelligences from one off world intelligence but no common ground reached between both parties.
************************************************** *************

The cases below,(i have included the early sightings from the 1940s as i believe this was the era of a genuine attempted contact or feelers being put out by some ET intelligences, this would lead up to Roswell), were investigated by the USAF blue book UFO investigation committee , this constitutes as official evidence from a official scientific investigation in to hundreds of UFO sightings and reports from military and civilian sources.Like i have said evidence comes and does manifest in the way we can perceive or understand it at our present time and especially this evidence is manifesting from a far superior technology.
************************************************** *************

THE UNEXPLAINED UFO CASES FROM THE PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILES
quote;
"In January, 1974, I visited the U.S. Air Force Archives at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala., to review the files of Project Blue Book as the first step toward writing a book on the subject.

In a full week, I read all the "unexplained" cases in the original files and made extensive notes, including the names and other identifying information on all witnesses where given. The cooperation of the staff of the Archives was excellent, and no restrictions were placed on my work.

A few months later, the files were withdrawn from public view so they could be prepared for transfer to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This process involved making a Xerox copy of almost 30 file drawers of material, blacking out the names and other identifiers of all witnesses, and then microfilming the censored Xerox copy. The microfilm has been available to the public at the National Archives since 1976. The original Project Blue Book files remain under lock and key at the Archives.

On almost every page of the 12,000+ case files, there are big black marks where information that could be used to cross-check Project Blue Book's controversial work has been censored.

This includes the names of witnesses to widely-publicized cases, and even names in newspaper clippings!

Yet, despite all the roadblocks, many reports are sufficiently complete to tell a pretty clear story of a puzzling experience. With this data now available, anyone can look at Project Blue Book's "unidentified" UFO reports and make up his own mind.



July 3, 1947; Harborside, Maine. 2:30 p.m. EDT. Witness: astronomer John Cole of South Brooksville, Me. Watched 10-15 seconds while ten very light objects, with two dark forms to their left, moved like a swarm of bees to the northwest. A loud roar was heard.
************************************************** *************
July 4, 1947; over Emmet, Idaho. 8:17 p.m. PDT. Witnesses: United Air Lines Capt. E.J. Smith, First Officer Ralph Stevens, Stewardess Marty Morrow. Watched for 12-15 minutes while four objects with flat bottoms and rough tops moved at varying speeds, with one high and to the right of the others.
************************************************** *************


July 6, 1947; Fairfield-Suisan Air Base, California. Daytime. Witnesses: Army Air Forces Capt. and Mrs. James Burniston. Watched for 1 minute while one object having no wings or tail rolled from side-to-side three times and then flew away very fast to the southeast.
************************************************** *************


July 8, 1947; Muroc Air Base, California. 9:30 a.m. PDT. Witnesses: lst Lt. Joseph McHenry, T/Sgt Ruvolo, S/Sgt Nauman, Miss Janette Scotte. Watched for an unstated length of time while two disc-shaped or spherical objects--silver and apparently metallic--flew a wide circular pattern, and then one of them later flew a tighter circle.
************************************************** *************

July 9, 1947; Meridian, Idaho. 12:17 p.m. PDT. Witness: Idaho statesman aviation editor and former (AAF) B-29 pilot Dave Johnson. Watched for more than 10 seconds from an Idaho Air National Guard AT-6 while a black disc, which stood out against the clouds, made a half-roll and then a stair-step climb.
************************************************** *************


July 10, 1947; Harmon Field, Newfoundland, Canada. Between 3 and 5 p.m. local time. Witnesses: three ground crewmen, including Mr. Leidy, for Pan American Airways. Watched briefly while one translucent disc- or wheel-shaped object flew very fast, leaving a dark blue trail and then ascended and cut a path through the clouds.
************************************************** *************


July 29, 1947; Hamilton Air Base, California. 2:50 p.m. PDT. Witnesses: Assistant Base Operations Officer Capt. William Rhyerd, ex-AAF B-29 pilot Ward Stewart. Watched for unknown length of time while two round, shiny, white objects with estimated 15-25 foot diameters, flew 3-4 times the apparent speed of a P-80, also in sight. One object flew straight and level; the other weaved from side-to-side like an escort fighter.
************************************************** *************


Sept. 3, 1947; Oswego, Oregon. 12:15 p.m. PDT. Witness: housewife Mrs. Raymond Dupui. Watched for unknown length of time as 12-15 round, silver objects flew an unstated pattern.
************************************************** *************


Oct., 1947; Dodgeville, Wisconsin. 11 unnamed civilian man. Watched for 1 hour while an undescribed object flew counterclockwise circles.
************************************************** *************


Oct. 14, 1947; 11 mi. NNE of Cave Creek, Arizona. Noon MDT. Witnesses: ex-AAF fighter pilot J.L. Clark, civilian pilot Anderson, third man. Watched 45-60 seconds while one 3-foot "flying wing"-shaped object, which looked black against the white clouds and red against the blue sky, flew straight at an estimated 380 m.p.h., at 8-10,000 feet, from NW to SE.
************************************************** *************


April 5, 1948; Holloman AFB, New Mexico. Afternoon. Witnesses: Geophysics Lab balloon observers Alsen, Johnson, Chance. Two irregular, round, white or golden objects. One made three loops then rose and disappeared rapidly; the other flew in a fast arc to the west during the 3O^second sighting.
************************************************** *************

July 29, 1948: Indianapolis, Indiana. 9:88 a.m. witness*: James Toney, Robert Huggins, both employees of a rug cleaning firm. One shiny aluminum object, shaped something like an airplane's propeller, with 10-12 small cups protruding from either blade. Estimated size 6-8' long, 1.5-2' wide. The object glided across the road a few hundred feet in front of their vehicle and apparently went down in a wooded area. Sighting lasted a few seconds.
************************************************** *************

link for further study of the USAF blue book"s unknown UFO case reports;

http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.

Last edited by jamesc; 22-08-2012 at 07:50 PM.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 07:50 PM   #36
deca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 19,285
Likes: 1,071 (727 Posts)
Default

Quote:
“One of their key plans is called Project Bluebeam. One element of this is to use laser-generating satellites in the ‘Star Wars’ network in different parts of the world to project holographic images in the sky of UFOs, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Khrishna, etc. With each belief system convinced that their savior has come, the potential for enormous religious conflict is obvious. Messages will be broadcast (as they already are) on the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), Very Low Frequency (VLF), Low Frequency (LF) and microwave bands which can be picked up by the human brain. This technology is highly sophisticated today and many people will believe that ‘God’ and their ‘savior’ is talking to them when it is really the Brotherhood manipulators. Much ‘channeled’ information comes from this source already. Project Bluebeam also involves the manifestation of ‘supernatural’ phenomena of many kinds to terrify the population and amid the terror and conflict, also via holographic image in the sky, the Brotherhood ‘savior’ will come.” -David Icke, “The Biggest Secret” (482)

hmm but we are not worried about the stupid low level man-made tech are we...you know the one you can see out your window any old night/day....the mast and satilites.....and we can trace the history of this in mkultra , Dr dalgado...but that not the super-duper "Alien" tech beaming on us from outaspace....no we should spend all day wondering what the "aliens" want ....
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 22-08-2012 at 07:51 PM.
deca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 07:53 PM   #37
alvaro_slash
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 266
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesc View Post
Things malfunction no matter the advancement of nanotechnology and again if you really new the UFO subject you would have realised that there is a branch of study dedicated to it. You are taking this alien/ET visitation on the premises that these intelligences would behave like you,have technology like us and could be easily seen or detected .Have you ever considered that they could have advanced "cloaking" capabilities , stealth capabilities of an advanced stage??

And what about the argument that i put forward that they or the majority of those who have been here are purely on a non contact,observational agenda.There is a wealth of information from very credible sources that show that SOME UFOs are or could be off world in origins, the fact that they are not arriving with party balloons and lights ect points to a non contact,stealth like observational agenda probably based on scientific research.

It seems that most are willing to condemn or reject the notion based on ignorance due to a real lake of knowledge that there has indeed been men of scientific credibility like Dr Hynek and Dr James E MacDonald who have stated after years of research and privy to top secret UFO information that there is a real genuine mystery going on in the skies of the worlds nations and that these objects have free rain over countries restricted air space , entering and leaving at will some time tracked by radar sometimes not.


If you would take the time to seriously study or look at Dr Hyneks "blue book unknowns" and Dr James E MacDonald"s investigation's you would i feel see some of the evidence you so require;Venture down the rabbit hole of this subject and you will see that evidence comes in a variety of disguises and usually right under ones nose.

Points to remember;
1;No direct open contact.
2;Observational/scientific agenda;
3;Stealth capabilities to remain undetected.
4;Possible attempted direct contact made in the 50s with USA governmental and military intelligences from one off world intelligence but no common ground reached between both parties.
************************************************** *************

The cases below,(i have included the early sightings from the 1940s as i believe this was the era of a genuine attempted contact or feelers being put out by some ET intelligences, this would lead up to Roswell), were investigated by the USAF blue book UFO investigation committee , this constitutes as official evidence from a official scientific investigation in to hundreds of UFO sightings and reports from military and civilian sources.Like i have said evidence comes and does manifest in the way we can perceive or understand it at our present time and especially this evidence is manifesting from a far superior technology.
************************************************** *************

THE UNEXPLAINED UFO CASES FROM THE PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILES
quote;
"In January, 1974, I visited the U.S. Air Force Archives at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala., to review the files of Project Blue Book as the first step toward writing a book on the subject.

In a full week, I read all the "unexplained" cases in the original files and made extensive notes, including the names and other identifying information on all witnesses where given. The cooperation of the staff of the Archives was excellent, and no restrictions were placed on my work.

A few months later, the files were withdrawn from public view so they could be prepared for transfer to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This process involved making a Xerox copy of almost 30 file drawers of material, blacking out the names and other identifiers of all witnesses, and then microfilming the censored Xerox copy. The microfilm has been available to the public at the National Archives since 1976. The original Project Blue Book files remain under lock and key at the Archives.

On almost every page of the 12,000+ case files, there are big black marks where information that could be used to cross-check Project Blue Book's controversial work has been censored.

This includes the names of witnesses to widely-publicized cases, and even names in newspaper clippings!

Yet, despite all the roadblocks, many reports are sufficiently complete to tell a pretty clear story of a puzzling experience. With this data now available, anyone can look at Project Blue Book's "unidentified" UFO reports and make up his own mind.



July 3, 1947; Harborside, Maine. 2:30 p.m. EDT. Witness: astronomer John Cole of South Brooksville, Me. Watched 10-15 seconds while ten very light objects, with two dark forms to their left, moved like a swarm of bees to the northwest. A loud roar was heard.
************************************************** *************
July 4, 1947; over Emmet, Idaho. 8:17 p.m. PDT. Witnesses: United Air Lines Capt. E.J. Smith, First Officer Ralph Stevens, Stewardess Marty Morrow. Watched for 12-15 minutes while four objects with flat bottoms and rough tops moved at varying speeds, with one high and to the right of the others.
************************************************** *************


July 6, 1947; Fairfield-Suisan Air Base, California. Daytime. Witnesses: Army Air Forces Capt. and Mrs. James Burniston. Watched for 1 minute while one object having no wings or tail rolled from side-to-side three times and then flew away very fast to the southeast.
************************************************** *************


July 8, 1947; Muroc Air Base, California. 9:30 a.m. PDT. Witnesses: lst Lt. Joseph McHenry, T/Sgt Ruvolo, S/Sgt Nauman, Miss Janette Scotte. Watched for an unstated length of time while two disc-shaped or spherical objects--silver and apparently metallic--flew a wide circular pattern, and then one of them later flew a tighter circle.
************************************************** *************

July 9, 1947; Meridian, Idaho. 12:17 p.m. PDT. Witness: Idaho statesman aviation editor and former (AAF) B-29 pilot Dave Johnson. Watched for more than 10 seconds from an Idaho Air National Guard AT-6 while a black disc, which stood out against the clouds, made a half-roll and then a stair-step climb.
************************************************** *************


July 10, 1947; Harmon Field, Newfoundland, Canada. Between 3 and 5 p.m. local time. Witnesses: three ground crewmen, including Mr. Leidy, for Pan American Airways. Watched briefly while one translucent disc- or wheel-shaped object flew very fast, leaving a dark blue trail and then ascended and cut a path through the clouds.
************************************************** *************


July 29, 1947; Hamilton Air Base, California. 2:50 p.m. PDT. Witnesses: Assistant Base Operations Officer Capt. William Rhyerd, ex-AAF B-29 pilot Ward Stewart. Watched for unknown length of time while two round, shiny, white objects with estimated 15-25 foot diameters, flew 3-4 times the apparent speed of a P-80, also in sight. One object flew straight and level; the other weaved from side-to-side like an escort fighter.
************************************************** *************


Sept. 3, 1947; Oswego, Oregon. 12:15 p.m. PDT. Witness: housewife Mrs. Raymond Dupui. Watched for unknown length of time as 12-15 round, silver objects flew an unstated pattern.
************************************************** *************


Oct., 1947; Dodgeville, Wisconsin. 11 unnamed civilian man. Watched for 1 hour while an undescribed object flew counterclockwise circles.
************************************************** *************


Oct. 14, 1947; 11 mi. NNE of Cave Creek, Arizona. Noon MDT. Witnesses: ex-AAF fighter pilot J.L. Clark, civilian pilot Anderson, third man. Watched 45-60 seconds while one 3-foot "flying wing"-shaped object, which looked black against the white clouds and red against the blue sky, flew straight at an estimated 380 m.p.h., at 8-10,000 feet, from NW to SE.
************************************************** *************


April 5, 1948; Holloman AFB, New Mexico. Afternoon. Witnesses: Geophysics Lab balloon observers Alsen, Johnson, Chance. Two irregular, round, white or golden objects. One made three loops then rose and disappeared rapidly; the other flew in a fast arc to the west during the 3O^second sighting.
************************************************** *************

July 29, 1948: Indianapolis, Indiana. 9:88 a.m. witness*: James Toney, Robert Huggins, both employees of a rug cleaning firm. One shiny aluminum object, shaped something like an airplane's propeller, with 10-12 small cups protruding from either blade. Estimated size 6-8' long, 1.5-2' wide. The object glided across the road a few hundred feet in front of their vehicle and apparently went down in a wooded area. Sighting lasted a few seconds.
************************************************** *************

link for further study of the USAF blue book"s unknown UFO case reports;

http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm
A great guide for those who seek alien evidence. Well done! I suggest reading the Blue Planet Project as well, and search about the yellow book. I ´ve created a thread about them, and it surprised me to see nobody around the forums never saw anything related to this.

Last edited by alvaro_slash; 22-08-2012 at 07:55 PM.
alvaro_slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 08:00 PM   #38
sanity
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

so you know alien craft propulsion can fail and you know they can cloak?
are you sure you werent watching star trek?

so where is this propulsion system that can take a craft faster than light?

where is it hidden?

breaking the speed of light is not a law set down by intergalactic police forces,its a law of physics.i wont even go into asking you how all this happens because the answer is always the same.its technology we dont know about.thats such an easy answer to give with nothing to back it up

so my original question still stands,
where is the genuine evidence of a alien craft? saying its hidden is not proof or even remotely good enough,i dont know if its hidden so why does anyone else?
a news event on the scale of alien visitors would be impossible to hide,the government in the u.s couldnt even hid ethe fact clinton stuck a cigar up some fat birds twat.yet you think they are hiding craft from who knows where.
these so called whistle blowers are just fraudsters trying to make money,why does the next one who goes public steal something from the craft?

because there is no craft,thats why.
sanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 08:14 PM   #39
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

i do feel that in any debate or those crying for evidence this document should be read and taken into account that science has its self ignored or dismissed the UFO enigma as the below document shows that was presented to the "American Association for the Advancement of Science" in a speech Dr James E MacDonald gave;

************************************************** *************

Science in Default:

Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting;

General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects

James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

The University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona

December 27, 1969;
quote;
"No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been carried out during the entire 22 years that have now passed since the first extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of 1947. Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of public concern, only quite superficial examinations of the steadily growing body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses have been conducted in this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all evidence now points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar characteristics throughout the world.

Charging inadequacy of all past UFO investigations, I speak not only from a background of close study of the past investigations, but also from a background of three years of rather detailed personal research, involving interviews with over five hundred witnesses in selected UFO cases, chiefly in the U. S. In my opinion, the UFO problem, far from being the nonsense problem that it has often been labeled by many scientists, constitutes a problem of extraordinary scientific interest.

The grave difficulty with essentially all past UFO studies has been that they were either devoid of any substantial scientific content, or else have lost their way amidst the relatively large noise-content that tends to obscure the real signal in the UFO reports. The presence of a percentually large number of reports of misidentified natural or technological phenomena (planets, meteors, and aircraft, above all) is not surprising, given all the circumstances surrounding the UFO problem.


Yet such understandable and usually easily recognized instances of misidentification have all too often been seized upon as a sufficient explanation for all UFO reports, while the residue of far more significant reports (numbering now of order one thousand) are ignored. I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly adequate studies of this problem, a problem that has aroused such strong and widespread public concern during the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the present climate of thinking, above all since release of the latest of a long series of inadequate studies, namely, that conducted under the direction of Dr. E. U. Condon at the University of Colorado, will make it very difficult to secure any new and more thorough investigations, yet my own examination of the problem forces me to call for just such new studies.

I am enough of a realist to sense that, unless the present AAAS UFO Symposium succeeds in making the scientific community aware of the seriousness of the UFO problem, little immediate response to any call for new investigation is likely to appear.

In fact, the over-all public and scientific response to the UFO phenomena is itself a matter of substantial scientific interest, above all in its social-psychological aspects. Prior to my own investigations, I would never have imagined the wide spread reluctance to report an unusual and seemingly inexplicable event, yet that reluctance, and the attendant reluctance of scientists to exhibit serious interest in the phenomena in question, are quite general. One regrettable result is the fact that the most credible of UFO witnesses are often those most reluctant to come forward with a report of the event they have witnessed.


A second regrettable result is that only a very small number of scientists have taken the time and trouble to search out the nearly puzzling reports that tend to be diluted out by the much larger number of trivial and non-significant UFO reports. The net result is that there still exists no general scientific recognition of the scope and nature of the UFO problem.

Within the federal government, official responsibility for UFO investigations has rested with the Air Force since early 1948. Unidentified aerial objects quite naturally fall within the area of Air Force concern, so this assignment of responsibility was basically reasonable, However, once it became clear (early 1949) that UFO reports did not seem to involve advanced aircraft of some hostile foreign power, Air Force interest subsided to relatively low levels, marked, however, by occasional temporary resurgence of interest following large waves of UFO reports, such as that of 1952, or 1957, or 1965.

A most unfortunate pattern of press reporting developed by about 1953, in which the Air Force would assert that they had found no evidence of anything "defying explanation in terms of present-day science and technology" in their growing files of UFO reports. These statements to the public would have done little harm had they not been coupled systematically to press statements asserting that "the best scientific facilities available to the U. S. Air Force" had been and were being brought to bear on the UFO question.


The assurances that substantial scientific competence was involved in Air Force UFO investigations have, I submit, had seriously deleterious scientific effects. Scientists who might otherwise have done enough checking to see that a substantial scientific puzzle lay in the UFO area were misled by these assurances into thinking that capable scientists had already done adequate study and found nothing.

My own extensive checks have revealed so slight a total amount of scientific competence in two decades of Air Force-supported investigations that I can only regard the repeated asseverations of solid scientific study of the UFO . problem as the single most serious obstacle that the Air Force has put in the way of progress towards elucidation of the matter

I do not believe, let me stress, that this has been part of some top- secret coverup of extensive investigations by Air Force or security agencies; I have found no substantial basis for accepting that theory of why the Air Force has so long failed to respond appropriately to the many significant and scientifically intriguing UFO reports coming from within its own ranks. Briefly, I see grand foulup but not grand cover;


Although numerous instances could be cited wherein Air Force spokesmen failed to release anything like complete details of UFO reports, and although this has had the regrettable consequence of denying scientists at large even a dim notion of the almost incredible nature of some of the more impressive Air Force-related UFO reports, I still feel that the most grievous fault of 22 years of Air Force handling of the UFO problem has consisted of their repeated public assertions that they had substantial scientific competence on the job.

Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of scientific analysis involved in Project Sign (1948-9), Project Grudge (1949- 52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed scientifically, almost meaning less investigations. Even during occasional periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by fairly active investigation of UFO cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there was never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most significant UFO cases would be elucidated.


Furthermore, the panels, consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working on the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception, brought almost negligible scientific scrutiny into the picture. Illustrative examples will be given.

The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of Air Force-supported study is, in my opinion, quite inadequate. The sheer bulk of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as "scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the salient point that it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory.


Furthermore, of the roughly 90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be unexplained. With so large a fraction of unexplained cases (out of a sample that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an objectionably large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."

I shall cite a number of specific examples of cases from the Condon Report which I regard as entirely inadequately investigated and reported. One at Kirtland AFB, November 4, 1957, involved observations of a wingless egg- shaped object that was observed hovering about a minute over the field prior to departure at a climb rate which was described to me as faster than that of any known jets, then or now. The principal witnesses in this case were precisely the type of witnesses whose accounts warrant closest attention, since they were CAA tower observers who watched the UFO from the CAA tower with binoculars.


Yet, when I located these two men in the course of my own check of cases from the Condon Report, I found that neither of them had even been contacted by members of the University of Colorado project! Both men were fully satisfied that they had been viewing a device with performance characteristics well beyond any thing in present or foreseeable aeronautical technology.

The two men gave me descriptions that were mutually consistent and that fit closely the testimony given on Nov. 6, 1957, when they were interrogated by an Air Force investigator. The Condon Report attempts to explain this case as a light-aircraft that lost its way, came into the field area, and then left.

This kind of explanation runs through the whole Condon Report, yet is wholly incapable of explaining the details of sightings such as that of the Kirtland AFB incident. Other illustrative instances in which the investigations summarized in the Condon Report exhibit glaring deficiencies will be cited. I suggest that there are enough significant unexplainable UFO reports just within the Condon Report itself to document the need for a greatly increased level of scientific study of UFOs.

That a panel of the National Academy of Sciences could endorse this study is to me disturbing. I find no evidence that the Academy panel did any independent checking of its own; and none of that 11-man panel had any significant prior investigative experience in this area, to my knowledge. I believe that this sort of Academy endorsement must be criticized; it hurts science in the long run, and I fear that this particular instance will ultimately prove an embarrassment to the National Academy of Sciences.

The Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly negative influence on clarification of the long-standing UFO problem; so much, in fact, that it seems almost pointless to now call for new and more extensive UFO investigations. Yet the latter are precisely what are needed to bring out into full light of scientific inquiry a phenomenon that could well constitute one of the greatest scientific problems of our times.


Some examples of UFO cases conceded to be unexplainable in the Condon Report and containing features of particularly strong scientific interest: Utica, N.Y., 6/23/55; Lakenheath, England, 8/13/56; Jackson, Ala., 11/14/56; Norfolk, Va., 8/30/57; RB-47 case, 9/19/57; Beverly Mass., 4/22/66; Donnybrook, N.D., 8/19/66; Haynesville, La., 12/30/66; Joplin, Mo., 1/13/67; Colorado Springs, Colo., 5/13/67.

Some examples of UFO cases considered explained in the Condon Report for which I would take strong exception to the argumentation presented and would regard as both unexplained and of strong scientific interest: Flagstaff, Ariz., 5/20/50; Washington, D. C., 7/19/52; Bellefontaine, O., 8/1/52; Haneda AFB, Japan, 8/5/52; Gulf of Mexico, 12/6/52; Odessa, Wash., 12/10/52; Continental Divide, N.M., 1/26/53; Seven Isles, Quebec, 6/29/54; Niagara Falls, N.Y., 7/25/57; Kirtland AFB, N.M., 11/4/57; Gulf of Mexico, 11/5/57; Peru, 12/30/66; Holloman AFB, 3/2/67; Kincheloe AFB, 9/11/67; Vandenberg AFB, 10/6/67; Milledgeville, Ga., 10/20/67.

Illustrative Cases

The following treats in detail the four principal UFO cases referred to in my Symposium talk. They are presented as specific illustrations of what I regard as serious shortcomings of case-investigations in the Condon Report and in the 1947-69 Air Force UFO program. The four cases used as illustrations are the following :

1. RB-47 case, Gulf Coast area, Sept. 19, 1957

2. Lakenheath RAF Station, England, August 13-14, 1956

3. Haneda AFB, Japan, August 5-6, 1952

4. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, Nov. 4, 1957

My principal conclusions are that scientific inadequacies in past years of UFO investigations by Air Force Project Bluebook have _not_ been remedied through publication of the Condon Report, and that there remain scientifically very important unsolved problems with respect to UFOs. The investigative and evaluative deficiencies illustrated in the four cases examined in detail are paralleled by equally serious shortcomings in many other cases in the sample of about 90 UFO cases treated in the Condon Report.

Endorsement of the conclusions of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences appears to have been based on entirely superficial examination of the Report and the cases treated therein. Further study, conducted on a much more sound scientific level are needed.

Case 1. USAF RB-47, Gulf Coast area, September 19-20, 1957.

Brief summary: An Air Force RB-47, equipped with ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) gear, manned by six officers, was followed over a total distance in excess of 600 miles and for a time period of more than an hour, as it flew from near Gulfport, Miss., through Louisiana and Texas, and into southern Oklahoma.

The unidentified object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew (as an intense white or red light), followed by ground-radar, and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct "channels" mark this UFO case as especially intriguing from a scientific viewpoint. The incident is described as Case 5 in the Condon Report and is conceded to be unexplained. The full details, however, are not presented in that Report.

1. Summary of the Case:

The case is long and involved and filled with well-attested phenomena that defy easy explanation in terms of present-day science and technology. The RB-47 was flying out of Forbes AFB, Topeka, on a composite mission including gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open Gulf, and ECM exercises in the return trip across the south-central U.S. This was an RB-47 carrying a six-man crew, of whom three were electronic warfare officers manning ECM (Electronic counter-measures) gear in the aft portion of the aircraft.

One of the extremely interesting aspects of this case is that electromagnetic signals of distinctly radar-like character appeared definitely to be emitted by the UFO, yet it exhibited performance characteristics that seem to rule out categorically its having been any conventional or secret aircraft.

I have discussed the incident with all six officers of the crew:

Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, Wash. James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB Walter A. Tuchscherer, No. 3 monitor, Topeka

Chase was a Major at the time; I failed to ask for information on 1957 ranks of the others. McClure and Hanley are currently Majors, so might have been Captains or Lieutenants in 1957. All were experienced men at the time. Condon Project investigators only talked with Chase, McCoid, and McClure, I ascertained.

In my checking it proved necessary to telephone several of them more than once to pin down key points; nevertheless the total case is so complex that I would assume that there are still salient points not clarified either by the Colorado investigators or by myself. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way, at present to locate the personnel involved in ground- radar observations that are a very important part of the whole case. I shall discuss that point below.

This flight occurred in September, 1957, just prior to the crew's reassignment to a European base. On questioning by Colorado investigators, flight logs were consulted, and based on the recollection that this flight was within a short time of departure from Forces to Germany, (plus the requirement that the date match a flight of the known type and geography) the 9/19/57 date seems to have emerged.

The uncertainty as to whether it was early on the 19th or early on the 20th, cited above is a point of confusion I had not noted until preparing the present notes. Hence I am unable to add any clarification, at the moment; in this matter of the date confusion found in Thayer's discussion of the case (1, pp. 136-138). I shall try to check that in the near future. For the present, it does not vitiate case-discussion in any significant way.

The incident is most inadequately described in the Condon Report. The reader is left with the general notion that the important parts occurred near Ft. Worth, an impression strengthened by the fact that both Crow and Thayer discuss meteorological data only for that area. One is also left with no clear impression of the duration, which was actually over an hour. The incident involved an unknown airborne object that stayed with the RB-47 for over 600 miles.

In case after case in the Condon Report, close checking reveals that quite significant features of the cases have been glossed over, or omitted, or in some instances seriously misrepresented. I submit that to fail to inform the reader that this particular case spans a total distance-range of some 600 miles and lasted well over an hour is an omission difficult to justify.

From my nine separate interviews with the six crew members, I assembled a picture of the events that makes it even more puzzling than it seems on reading the Condon Report -- and even the latter account is puzzling enough.

Just as the aircraft crossed the Mississippi coast near Gulfport, McClure, manning the #2 monitor, detected a signal near their 5 o'clock position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him like a legitimate ground-radar signal, but corresponded to a position out in the Gulf. This is the actual beginning of the complete incident; but before proceeding with details it is necessary to make quite clear what kind of equipment we shall be talking about as we follow McClure's successive observations.

Under conditions of war, bombing aircraft entering hostile territory can be assisted in their penetrations if any of a variety of electronic countermeasures (ECM techniques as they are collectively termed) are brought into action against ground-based enemy radar units.


The initial step in all ECM operations is, necessarily, that of detecting the enemy radar and quantitatively identifying a number of relevant features of the radar system (carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, scan rate, pulse width) and, above all, its bearing relative to the aircraft heading. The latter task is particularly ample in principle, calling only for direction-finding antennas which pick up the enemy signal and display on a monitor scope inside the reconnaissance aircraft a blip or lobe that paints in the relative bearing from which the signal is coming.

The ECM gear used in RB-47's in 1957 is not now classified; the #2 monitor that McClure was on, he and the others pointed out, involved an ALA-6 direction-finder with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the undersurface of the RB-47 near the rear, spun at either 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned in azimuth. Inside the aircraft, its signals were processed in an APR-9 radar receiver and an ALA-5 pulse analyser.

All later references to the #2 monitor imply that system. The #1 monitor employed an APD-4 direction finding system, with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. Provenzano was on the #1 monitor. Tuchscherer was on the #3 monitor, whose specifications I did not ascertain because I could find no indication that it was involved in the observations.

Returning now to the initial features of the UFO episode, McClure at first thought he had 180-degree ambiguity in his scope, i.e., that the signal whose lobe painted at his 5 o'clock position was actually coming in from the 11 o'clock position perhaps from some ground radar in Louisiana. This suspicion, he told me, was temporarily strengthened as he became aware that the lobe was moving up scope.

(It is important here and in features of the case cited below to understand how a fixed ground-radar paints on the ECM monitor scope as the reconnaissance aircraft flies toward its general direction: Suppose the ground radar is, at some instant, located at the 1 o'clock position relative to the moving aircraft, i.e., slightly off the starboard bow.


As the aircraft flies along, the relative bearing steadily changes, so that the fixed ground unit is "seen" successively at the 2 o'clock, the 3 o'clock, and the 4 o'clock positions, etc. The lobe paints on the monitor scope at these successive relative azimuths, the 12 o'clock position being at the top of the scope, 3 o'clock at the right, etc.

Thus any legitimate signal from a fixed ground radar must move downscope, excluding the special cases in which the radar is dead ahead or dead astern. Note carefully that we deal here only with direction finding gear. Range is unknown; we are not here speaking of an airborne radar set, just a radar-frequency direction-finder. In practice, range is obtained by triangulation computations based on successive fixes and known aircraft speed.)

As the lobe continued moving _upscope_, McClure said the strength of the incoming signal and its pulse characteristics all tended to confirm that this was some ground unit being painted with 180-degree ambiguity for some unknown electronic reason. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band search radars.

However, after the lobe swung dead ahead, his earlier hypothesis had to be abandoned for it continued swinging over to the 11 o'clock position and continued downscope on the port side. Clearly, no 180-degree ambiguity was capable of accounting for this. Curiously, however, this was so anomalous that McClure did not take it very seriously and did not at that juncture mention it to the cockpit crew nor to his colleagues on the other two monitors.

This upscope-downscope "orbit" of the unknown was seen only on the ALA-6, as far as I could establish. Had nothing else occurred, this first and very significant portion of the whole episode would almost certainly have been for gotten by McClure.

The signal faded as the RB-47 headed northward to the scheduled turning point over Jackson, Miss. The mission called for simulated detection and ECM operations against Air Force ground radar units all along this part of the flight plan, but other developments intervened. Shortly after making their turn westward over Jackson, Miss., Chase noted what he thought at first were the landing lights of some other jet coming in from near his 11 o'clock position, at roughly the RB-47's altitude.


But no running lights were discernible and it was a single very bright white light, closing fast. He had just alerted the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden evasive maneuvers, when he and McCoid saw the light almost instantaneously change directions and rush across from left to right at an angular velocity that Chase told me he'd never seen matched in his flight experience. The light went from their 11 o'clock to the 2 o'clock position with great rapidity, and then blinked out.


Immediately after that, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the interphone and McClure, recalling the unusual 2800 megacycle signal that he had seen over Gulfport now mentioned that peculiar incident for the first time to Chase and McCoid. It occurred to him at that point to set his #2 monitor to scan at 2800 mcs. On the first scan, McClure told me, he got a strong 2800 mcs signal from their 2 o'clock position, the bearing on which the luminous unknown object had blinked out moments earlier.

Provenzano told me that right after that they had checked out the #2 monitor on valid ground radar stations to be sure it was not malfunctioning and it appeared to be in perfect order. He then checked on his #1 monitor and also got a signal from the same bearing.


There remained, of course, the possibility that just by chance, this signal was from a real radar down on the ground and off in that direction. But as the minutes went by, and the aircraft continued westward at about 500 kts. the relative bearing of the 2800 mcs source did not move downscope on the #2 monitor, but kept up with them.

This quickly led to a situation in which the entire 6-man crew focussed all attention on the matter; the incident is still vivid in the minds of all the men, though their recollection for various details varies with the particular activities they were engaged in. Chase varied speed, to see if the relative bearing would change but nothing altered.

After over a hundred miles of this, with the 2800 mcs source keeping pace with the aircraft, they were getting into the radar-coverage area of the Carswell AFB GCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) unit and Chase radioed that unit to ask if they showed any other air traffic near the RB-47.


Carswell GCI immediately came back with the information that there was apparently another aircraft about 10 miles from them at their 2 o'clock position. (The RB-47 was unambiguously identifiable by its IFF signal; the "other aircraft" was seen by "skin paint" Only, i.e., by direct radar reflection rather than via an IFF transponder, Col. Chase explained.)

This information, each of the men emphasized to me in one way or another, made them a bit uneasy for the first time. I asked McClure a question that the Colorado investigators either failed to ask or did not summarize in their Report. Was the signal in all respects comparable to that of a typical ground radar?

McClure told me that this was what baffled him the most, then and now. All the radar signature characteristics, as read out on his ALA-5 pulse analyzer, were completely normal -- it had a pulse repetition frequency and pulse width like a CPS-6B and even simulated a scan rate:

But its intensity, McClure pointed out, was so strong that "it would have to had an antenna bigger than a bomber to put out that much signal." And now, the implications of the events over Gulfport took on new meaning. The upscope- downscope sweep of his #2 monitor lobe implied that this source, presuming it to be the same one now also being seen on ground radar at Carswell GCI, had flown a circle around the RB-47 at 30-35,000 ft altitude while the aircraft was doing about 500 kts.

Shortly after Carswell GCI began following the two targets, RB-47 and unknown, still another significant action unfolded. McClure suddenly noted the lobe on the #2 monitor was beginning to go upscope, and almost simultaneously, Chase told me, GCI called out that the second airborne target was starting to move forward.

Keep in mind that no visual target was observable here; after blinking out at the 12 o'clock position, following its lightning-like traverse across the nose of the aircraft, no light had been visible. The unknown now proceeded to move steadily around to the 12 o'clock position, followed all the while on the #2 monitor and on the GCI scope down at Carswell near Ft. Worth.

As soon as the unknown reached the 12 o'clock position, Chase and McCoid suddenly saw a bright red glow "bigger than a house", Chase said, and lying dead ahead, precisely the bearing shown on the passive radar direction-finder that McClure was on and precisely the bearing now indicated on the GCI scope. _Three independent sensing systems_ were at this juncture giving seemingly consistent-indications: two pairs of human eyes, a ground radar, and a direction-finding radar receiver in the aircraft.

One of the important points not settled by the Colorado investigations concerned the question of whether the unknown was ever painted on any radar set on the RB-47 itself. Some of the men thought the navigator had seen it on his set, others were unsure. I eventually located Maj. Hanley at Vandenberg and he informed me that all through the incident, which he remembered very well, he tried, unsuccessfully to pick up the unknown on his navigational radar (K-system).


I shall not recount all of the details of his efforts and his comments, but only mention the end result of my two telephone interviews with him. The important question was what sort of effective range that set had. Hanley gave the pertinent information that it could just pick up a large tanker of the KC-97 type at about 4 miles range, when used in the "altitude- hold" mode, with antenna tipped up to maximum elevation.

But both at the start of its involvement and during the object's swing into the 12 o'clock position, GCI showed it remaining close to 10 miles in range from the RB-47. Thus Hanley's inability to detect it on his K-system navigational radar in altitude hold only implies that whatever was out there had a radar cross-section that was less than about 16 times that of a KC-97 (roughly twice 4 miles, inverse 4th-power law),

The unknown gave a GCI return that suggested a cross-section comparable to an ordinary aircraft, Chase told me, which is consistent with Hanley's non-detection of the object. The Condon Report gives the impression the navigator did detect it, but this is not correct.

I have in my files many pages of typed notes on my interviews, and cannot fill in all of the intriguing details here. Suffice it to say that Chase then went to maximum allowable power, hoping to close with the unknown, but it just stayed ahead at about 10 miles as GCI kept telling them; it stayed as a bright red light dead ahead, and it kept painting as a bright lobe on the top of McClure's ALA-6 scope.

By this time they were well into Texas still at about 35,000 ft and doing upwards of 500 knots, when Chase saw it begin to veer to the right and head between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Getting FAA clearance to alter his own flight plan and to make sure other jet traffic was out of his way, he followed its turn, and then realized he was beginning to close on it for the first time. Almost immediately GCI told him the unknown had stopped moving on the ground-radarscope. Chase and McCoid watched as they came almost up to it.


Chase's recollections on this segment of the events were distinctly clearer than McCoid's. McCoid was, of course, sitting aft of Chase and had the poorer view; also he said he was doing fuel-reserve calculations in view of the excess fuel-use in their efforts to shake the unknown, and had to look up from the lighted cockpit to try to look out intermittently, while Chase in the forward seat was able to keep it in sight more nearly continuously. Chase told me that he'd estimate that it was just ahead of the RB-47 and definitely below them when it instantaneously blinked out,

At that same moment McClure announced on the interphone that he'd lost the 2800 mcs signal, and GCI said it had disappeared from their scope. Such simultaneous loss of signal on what we can term three separate channels is most provocative, most puzzling.

Putting the aircraft into a left turn (which Chase noted consumes about 15-20 miles at top speed), they kept looking back to try to see the light again. And, about halfway through the turn (by then the aircraft had reached the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas, Chase said), the men in the cockpit suddenly saw the bright red light flash on again, back along their previous flight path but distinctly lower, and simultaneously GCI got a target again and McClure started picking up a 2800 mcs signal at that bearing: (As I heard one after another of these men describe all this, I kept trying to imagine how it was possible that Condon could listen, at the October, 1967, plasma conference at the UFO Project, as Col. Chase recounted all this and shrug his shoulders and walk out.)

Securing permission from Carswell GCI to undertake the decidedly non- standard maneuver of diving on the unknown, Chase put the RB-47 nose down and had reached about 20,000 ft, he recalls, when all of a sudden the light blinked out, GCI lost it on their scope, and McClure reported loss of signal on the #2 monitor: Three-channel consistency once more.

Low on fuel, Chase climbed back up to 25,000 and headed north for Oklahoma. He barely had it on homeward course when McClure got a blip dead astern and Carswell radioed that they had a target once more trailing the RB- 47 at about 10 miles. Rear visibility from the topblisters of the RB-4 now precluded easy visual check, particularly if the unknown was then at lower altitude (Chase estimated that it might have been near 15,000 ft when he lost it in the dive). It followed them to southern Oklahoma and then disappeared.

2. Discussion:

This incident is an especially good example of a UFO case in which observer credibility and reliability do not come into serious question, a case in which more than one (here three) channel of information figures in the over-all observations, and a case in which the reported phenomena appear to defy explanation in terms of either natural or technological phenomena.

In the Condon Report, the important initial incident in which the unknown 2800 MC source appeared to orbit the RB-47 near Gulfport is omitted. In the Condon Report, the reader is given no hint that the object was with the aircraft for over 600 miles and for over an hour. No clear sequence of these events is spelled out, nor is the reader made aware of all of the "three- channel" simultaneous appearances or disappearances that were so emphatically stressed to me by both Chase and McClure in my interviews with them.


But even despite those degrees of incompleteness, any reader of the account of this case in the Condon Report must wonder that an incident of this sort could be left as unexplained and yet ultimately treated, along with the other unexplained cases in that Report, as calling for no further scientific attention.

Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed in one part of the Condon Report where this case is discussed separately (pp. 136-138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion near 2 km altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly untenable. In an Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of ground return from anomalous propagation appears; in fact, it is so unrelated to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here.

Chase's account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the unknown object on-scope for a total flight-distance of the order of several hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or duct, however intense, the possibility of anomalous propagation effects yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the reported movements and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal.


And the more so in view of the simultaneous appearances and disappearances on the ECM gear and via visible emissions from the unknown. To suggest, as is tentatively done on p. 138 that the "red glow" might have been a "mirage of Oklahoma City", when the pilot's description of the luminous source involves a wide range of viewing angles, including two instances when he was viewing it at quite large depression angles, is wholly unreasonable.

Unfortunately, that kind of casual ad hoc hypothesizing with almost no attention to relevant physical considerations runs all through the case-discussions in the treatment of radar and optical cases in the Condon Report, frequently (though not in this instance) being made the basis of "explanations" that are merely absurd. On p. 265 of the Report, the question of whether this incident might be explained in terms of any "plasma effect" is considered but rejected. In the end, this case is conceded to be unexplained.

No evidence that a report on this event reached Project Bluebook was found by the Colorado investigators. That may seem hard to believe for those who are under the impression that the Air Force has been diligently and exhaustively investigating UFO reports over the past 22 years. But to those who have examined more closely the actual levels of investigation, lack of a report on this incident is not so surprising.

Other comparable instances could he cited, and still more where the military aircrews elected to spare themselves the bother of interrogation,by not even reporting events about as puzzling as those found in this RB-47 incident.

But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a well-reported, multi-channel, multiple-witness UFO report, coming in fact from within the Air Force itself, investigated by the Condon Report team, conceded to be unexplained, and yet it is, in final analysis, ignored by Dr. Condon.

In no section of the Report specifically written by the principal investigator does he even allude to this intriguing case. My question is how such events can be written off as demanding no further scientific study. To me, such cases seem to cry out for the most intensive scientific study -- and the more so because they are actually so much more numerous than the scientific community yet realizes.


There is a scientific mystery here that is being ignored and shoved under the rug; the strongest and most unjustified shove has come from the Condon Report. "unjustified" because that Report itself contains so many scientifically puzzling unexplained cases (approximately 30 out of 90 cases considered) that it is extremely difficult to understand how its principal investigator could have construed the contents of the Report as supporting a view that UFO studies should be terminated.

to read the rest of this astounding attack on the scientific community for its lack of seriousness or scientific study of the UFO situation see below link;
http://dewoody.net/ufo/Science_in_Default.html
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2012, 08:17 PM   #40
king triad
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 10,477
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity View Post

because there is no craft,thats why.
You are clearly trolling...did you read the posts by James or research underground bases..I think with your logic you are about 14...I've seen over 50 ufo's some up close so I've seen the proof..
king triad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.