UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.

Some might argue I have posted “too many” cases, others, “too few”. I have chosen the reports and cases for two reasons: First, because they represent the intriguing, compelling research and testimony of people from all walks of life, from housewives to astronauts, from farmers to scientists, from police officers to military pilots… and from pre-history to the present; and second, because they are some of the most well researched cases on record.

There are of course millions of UFO reports on record, so selecting was not an easy task, but I hope you will find them at least interesting.

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.

My proposal is to discuss the cases in turn, beginning with the “Aliens Throughout History” links and work through the list and see what eventuates.

For example I find it intriguing that skeptics invariably imply that the UFO phenomenon is a relatively recent arrival into public consciousness, often citing Kenneth Arnold’s experience as “kicking off” the UFO “craze” and then referencing Hollywood and the media as ultimately influential in driving the common conception of UFOs and aliens and thus directly influencing what is reported. Nothing could be further from the truth. I give you then, to kick proceedings off, “UFOs Throughout Early History”! (that is...ahem...after the preceding Reports and Committees section... I provide that section incidentally as a "ready reference" so people can easily check what the "official" research says about some cases)

Enjoy, Discuss, debate.
Here is the evidence.
What do YOU make of it?

Research Reports and Committees

1. Project Sign (1948)
1.1 Estimate of the Situation
(http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)

2. Project Grudge (1948 to 1952)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grudge)

3. The Robertson Panel (14-17 Jan 1953)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)

4. Project Blue Book (1952 to 30 Jan 1970)
4.1 The Blue Book Unknowns
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)
4.2 The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

5. The O’Brien Committee (1996)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/obrien.htm)

6. The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
6.1. General Articles and Documents on Condon Report
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
6.2 Project Coordinator Low’s Infamous “Trick Memo”
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...onreport04.htm)

7. The 1968 US Congressional Hearings (plus various other government studies)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/governmentstudies.htm)

8. GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France) (1997 – present)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)

9. The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997)
9.1 Report (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc535.htm)
9.2 Related Documents (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm)

10. COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

11. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/fr...enceregion.htm)

UFO case studies

UFOs Throughout Early History
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc154.htm)
(http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_...=ufoartwork_bc)
(http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_...=ufoartwork_ad)

The Great Airships (1896 - 1897)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Airships.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship)

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/battleoflosangeles.html)

WWII Foo Fighters (1943 - 1945)
(http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/histfoo1.htm)

Swedish Ghost rockets (1946)
(http://www.project1947.com/fig/1946a.htm)

Kenneth Arnold UFO Sighting (24 Jun 1947)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case511.htm)

Roswell (8 Jul 1947): (Dr.) Jesse Marcel Jr.
(http://www.cufos.org/marcelWeb.pdf)
(http://www.roswellproof.com/Marcel_Jr.html)

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)

Great Falls, Montana UFO film (15 Aug 1950)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/greatfalls.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/montana50.htm#events)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

Flatwoods Monster UFO Event (12 Sep 1952)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case535.htm)
(http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfflatwoods.html)

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

The Lakenheath Military Encounter (13 - 14 Aug 1956)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bentwaters1956.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm)

Astronaut Gordon Cooper/UFO landing at Edwards AFB (1957)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case357.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gordoncooperufos.html)

The RB-47 UFO Encounter (17 Jul 1957)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm)

The Antonio Villas Boas Abduction (5 Oct 1957)
(http://www.interstellar-travel.com/l...oids/2-AVB.cfm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/boastotalabduction.html)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)

Betty and Barney Hill (19 Sep 1961)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Hill.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

Big Sur - Vandenberg Minuteman Missile/UFO Incident (Sep 1964)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bigsur.html)

The Kecksburg UFO Crash (9 Dec 1965)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kecksburg.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Kecksburg.htm)

Mothman - Point Pleasant, West Virginia (12 Nov 1966 - 15 Dec 1967)
(http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/arch...y/mothman.html)

The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident (16 Mar 1967)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/malmstrom67dir.htm)

Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction (3 Dec 1967)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case659.htm)

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

The Pascagoula, Mississippi/Hickson/Parker Abduction (10 Oct 1973)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pascagoula.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/pascagoula.htm)

The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)

Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters UFO Incident (25 – 27 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm)
The Halt Tape (http://www.ufologie.net/htm/rendlestape.htm)

The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)

JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm)

Belgian UFO Sightings (1989 - 1990)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)

Russian UFO Crash (28 Aug 1991)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Russia.html)

The Cosford Incident (30-31 Mar 1993)
(http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)

The American West Flight 564 UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

UFO/Airplane Near Miss, Manchester Airport, UK (6 Jan 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/manchester1995.html)

STS-75: The Tether Incident (25 Feb 1997)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470704/pg1)

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-riv...ufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)

The Phoenix Lights (13 - 14 Mar 1997)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/phoenixlights.html)
(http://www.rense.com/general40/phoenix.htm)

Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) (5 Jan 2000)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case277.htm)

The Cempeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/mexico/mexico.dwt)
(http://www.csicop.org/si/show/campec...ared_ufo_video)

UFO RADAR cases
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm)

UFO Photography
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html)

Physical Evidence
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm)

UFO Crashes and Retrievals
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/UFOcrashes.htm)

UFOs and Astronauts
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Astronauts.htm)
(http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/apollo.htm)
(http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc504.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc526.htm)

[Marduk]

some of those reports are extremely dubious
my favourite was this one
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1898.htm

Quote:

The strangest thing was the unknown inscription in an unknown
language found inside the cabin. After deciphering the language
it was determined to have been ancient Sanskrit - or the ancient
Indian language.

Later speculation was that the object was some kind of ancient
'Vimana' described in ancient Indian manuscripts like the
'Vimanika Shastra', etc.

the Vimanika Shastra is not ancient, it was channelled in the 20th century

Quote:

A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircrafts described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaimanika_Shastra
you said you were going to post evidence for Aliens and UFOs, what is the point of posting this crapola that anyone whos interested can find with google ?
besides with this quality of evidence all youve proved is that you have no objectivity at all
better luck next time

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Marduk

some of those reports are extremely dubious
my favourite was this one
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1898.htm

Yeah, strange stuff huh?
Nobody said any of this would be immediately "believable", in fact so much of it is so unbelievable that many people don't even bother to post things like I just did because they fear ridicule for doing so - and as a corollary, they won't talk about their own experiences because of the same fear.

I am interested though Marduk, on your thoughts surrounding the very first reference(s) on the UFOs in history?

[Marduk]

the Brinsley Le Poer Trench book or Ezekiels vision ?
none of the other claims made in the link can be substantiated and the other two authors on the whole are not good sources Wilkins relying on ancient texts which have been channelled in the same way that the Vimanika Shastra was and Vallee despite being credited as the most thorough researcher of the period later destroyed his credibility by producing :-
"Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects",
which were
1.unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
2.the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
3.the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
4.the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
5.the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.

so you have two options,
1. Brinsley Le Poer Trench
2. Ezekiel

I'm hoping you don't want an analysis of the spurious claims for the cherry picked examples included in Matthew Hurleys website !!

[Seismosaurus]

The Phoenix Lights has been long debunked as a set of parachute flares dropped during an Air Force exercise.

[arthwollipot]

tl;dr

Seriously Roger, do you have anything other than stories?

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

The Phoenix Lights has been long debunked as a set of parachute flares dropped during an Air Force exercise.

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story...

I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope?

Yes, Marduk...getting back to you ASAP...

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

tl;dr

Seriously Roger, do you have anything other than stories?

(chuckling in genuine amusement) That's a good one! I like it... very clever.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

(chuckling in genuine amusement) That's a good one! I like it... very clever.

Well seriously, there are hundreds - thousands - probably millions of stories of UFOs, but not one piece of solid, verifiable evidence.

Bring me something concrete and I'll start believing that there's something to it. Until then, anyone can tell stories.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Marduk

(...)

so you have two options,
1. Brinsley Le Poer Trench
2. Ezekiel

I'm hoping you don't want an analysis of the spurious claims for the cherry picked examples included in Matthew Hurleys website !!

Actually, these reports are widely available from other sources (even Ezekiel) so you trying to discredit the authors who merely compiled the reports does not wash with me. I am interested in the CONTENT of the reports, not in whoever was the latest scientist, idiot, wako or genuine guy to compile them.

No, I don't need an analysis, I just wanted your general impressions...you have provided that in reference to some "cherry picked" examples...perhaps I should be satisfied with that. At least you have gone to the site and had a look before commenting ( I assume) ...and that I do commend you for...

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Well seriously, there are hundreds - thousands - probably millions of stories of UFOs, but not one piece of solid, verifiable evidence.

Bring me something concrete and I'll start believing that there's something to it. Until then, anyone can tell stories.

Then perhaps you could provide me your insights on the physical trace cases? There is a link to one site that will give you a jumping in point.

I think that there DOES exist physical evidence and that evidence has been outlined (in for example) the site listed - but of course there are other sites AND there are also sites I have NOT referenced that claim to have "bits" of UFO that can be (and sometimes have been) analysed... but I did not include links to those sites because...well... I am simply NOT convinced of the veracity of those claims.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story...

I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope?

Yes, Marduk...getting back to you ASAP...

No one is assuming anything about the Phoenix lights. What they actually were, both sets, is pretty well documented, and it wasn't spacecraft...

Also, it was just covered pretty extensively in a thread here...

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

No one is assuming anything about the Phoenix lights. What they actually were, both sets, is pretty well documented, and it wasn't spacecraft...

Also, it was just covered pretty extensively in a thread here...

"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.

[Czarcasm]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.

"Phoenix lights" would not be referring to any daylight aircraft, as you well know.

[StevenCalder]

Well none of this actually confirms the alien hypothesis does it.

It doesn't matter if you attempt to make the end hypothesis vague by moving from ET to ET/Inter-dimensional beings/... . When the evidence is insufficient the correct position is always I don't know. This is: "I don't know, therefore I know it is beyond our understand of reality". Science hasn't stopped learning, questions unanswerable now, maybe be explainable by natural phenomena tomorrow. Its still an argument from ignorance I'm afraid.

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope?

Rramjet, although I might not agree with you on your conclusions (haven't studied enough yet to say anything) I want to express my respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is'. You have provided extensive back up for, if nothing else, at least your belief.

Alas, I fear you are investing too much in this. I also had a moment on this forum believing it would be a great place to bring forth what I felt as a base for some beliefs I held, and get a fair evaluation of them. Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.

I really wouldn't wish this happens to you as well (at least Marduk threw a pebble...maybe that's better than complete knee-jerk rejection...). So I'd ask you to kindly re-post a single link which you feel provides the most convincing case. At least I'd be interested to give it a look and express my opinion.

Thanks!

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Rramjet, although I might not agree with you on your conclusions (haven't studied enough yet to say anything) I want to express my respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is'. You have provided extensive back up for, if nothing else, at least your belief.

Alas, I fear you are investing too much in this. I also had a moment on this forum believing it would be a great place to bring forth what I felt as a base for some beliefs I held, and get a fair evaluation of them. Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.

I really wouldn't wish this happens to you as well (at least Marduk threw a pebble...maybe that's better than complete knee-jerk rejection...). So I'd ask you to kindly re-post a single link which you feel provides the most convincing case. At least I'd be interested to give it a look and express my opinion.

Thanks!

Hi Tapio -thank you.

Ah yes... "THE" most convincing case... But you see, That is the problem entirely. It is the "weight of evidence" that does it. Just as in any other broader scientific endeavour, we cannot rely on a single instance to prove the hypothesis - we must have a more. It is actually a problem of epistemology - how do we know what we know?

A single case? Well the Rogue River case is as good as any I guess ((http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html) - but that is only because it is topical at this moment in this forum - tommorow I might point someone else to a different case.

And have you seen my reply to you on this in the other thread ...about the object moving off at "jet plane" speeds, and about how the Air Force investigated this case entirely on its own recognisance and if "blimp" was the answer - even speculatively, THEY would have been the very FIRST to propose that as an explanation ...no Tapio ...I believe you are a fair minded, keen student of knowledge... but students must also study carefully the evidence as presented to them - first hand - and not take so easily a second-hand opinion that might seem to confirm a belief already forming. So, that is as good a case as any...

But remember also the big picture. Too often we focus in on the minutia of things, only to miss the grander schema available to us. It is what the WHOLE is telling us. Taken together all these reports and research outcomes add up, until we can no longer ignore what the message is. That SOMETHING is going on here that cannot be dismissed so easily as some might suggest.

[StevenCalder]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.

I might have had a significant look through all of this had he not already stated that he finds no logical link between the evidence and aliens, and we cannot draw any definitive conclusions the evidence.

He's posting evidence he's already said doesn't prove his hypothesis or even convince him of a logical link.

If he can post something which he can tell me will prove that hypothesis, then I'll be reading these sometimes massive documents in my free time

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by StevenCalder

Well none of this actually confirms the alien hypothesis does it.

(...)

Science hasn't stopped learning, questions unanswerable now, maybe be explainable by natural phenomena tomorrow. Its still an argument from ignorance I'm afraid.

No-one said it confirmed the "alien hypothesis" (I presume you actually mean the ET hypothesis). All I am saying is that it confirms that SOMETHING (we do not know what) is going on that lies outside our current knowledge of reality.

But your argument is exactly "the argument from ignorance". You logic is exactly: We don't know what is going on but tomorrow it will be explained as natural phenomena. That (I AM afraid) IS the argument from ignorance (in which it is claimed that a premise is true - that all UFOs will be explicable as natural phenomena - only because it has not been proven false - and THAT is a fallacy).

[StevenCalder]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

But your argument is exactly "the argument from ignorance". You logic is exactly: We don't know what is going on but tomorrow it will be explained as natural phenomena. That (I AM afraid) IS the argument from ignorance (in which it is claimed that a premise is true - that all UFOs will be explicable as natural phenomena - only because it has not been proven false - and THAT is a fallacy).

Either you've misread or I was unclear.

My argument is I don't know what the answer will be when identified, so my answer is I don't know.

I wasn't positing that all UFO's will be explicable by natural phenomena, but that they could be and it would be disingenuous of us to pretend like our lack of knowledge now implies that a greater agency must be at work. But I thought I was relatively clear with that. Hopefully that is clearer to you now.

[Tapio]

Rramjet, I hear you. But as with all scientific endeavours, so I feel also with the investigation into possible alien presence we must proceed one step at a time. And only one step at a time. Before the first step is assured (hypothesis becoming theory) to lead us on to the second (a new hypothesis based on the first theory), proceeding would be equivalent to taking a 'leap of faith' (which many believers demand of skeptics). That might be great and serve well an indivudual in the context of his/her life, but it's not scientific.

Anyway, I will now take this Rogue River case under closer scrutiny (good to know kitakaze is on it as well, always useful to get more opinions). Might take a while, but I'll report my layman expressions back to you.

Until then, cheers!

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by StevenCalder

I might have had a significant look through all of this had he not already stated that he finds no logical link between the evidence and aliens, and we cannot draw any definitive conclusions the evidence.

He's posting evidence he's already said doesn't prove his hypothesis or even convince him of a logical link.

If he can post something which he can tell me will prove that hypothesis, then I'll be reading these sometimes massive documents in my free time

Ah but I CLEARLY stated that there WAS a link between UFOs and aliens. Just NOT between UFOs and ET. We just don't have any good evidence as to WHERE the aliens come from - they COULD be indigenous for example. There is a distinction to be made here. Perhaps it is the terminology that throws us. We just don't have a precise term to describe it...perhaps "foreign"... but even that does not convey the true meaning. "extra-reality"? "Supernatural"? Something outside our current conception of reality.

...and so you are just not going to look at the evidence based on the imprecision of semantics - even as a matter of personal curiosity to see what I am on about?

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story....

Actually there are two events for the one night in question. I think one can draw a much more reasonable conclusion about the source of the two events.

The 10PM event has been shown to be flares by just about anybody wanting to analyze the videos through triangulation.

The 8-8:30 PM has a very plausible solution of a formation of aircraft with lights. This has been discussed ad nauseum in several threads. I just direct people to my webpage on the subject:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm

Specifically:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/azconc.htm

[StevenCalder]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Ah but I CLEARLY stated that there WAS a link between UFOs and aliens.

Could you expand on this and describe this link?

If you are positing that unidentified things are the basis for this, it is still a argument from ignorance...

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by StevenCalder

Either you've misread or I was unclear.

My argument is I don't know what the answer will be when identified, so my answer is I don't know.

I wasn't positing that all UFO's will be explicable by natural phenomena, but that they could be and it would be disingenuous of us to pretend like our lack of knowledge now implies that a greater agency must be at work. But I thought I was relatively clear with that. Hopefully that is clearer to you now.

Yes, but then, according to that logic, in order to avoid being disingenuous, you must concede equally that UFOs COULD turn out to be explicable as ETs.

So I am, on that basis, merely providing evidence to support the case that mundane (or "natural") explanations are NOT the answer - NOT that the answer IS ET.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.

There were no daylight sightings unless you want to tack on a whole bunch of stories people told months later or associate some other events. When it comes down to it, there are only two events concerning the Arizona UFOs. One has been explained, the other has a reasonably plausible explanation for which there is reasonable anecdotal evidence for.

As for the scrambled fighter jets, no witnesses from the NUFORC database who saw the 8-8:30PM event report seeing F-15s or F-16s going after the V shaped formation of lights. These are just claims that can not be verified and are typical to the hype that UFOlogists like to add to a story to make it sound better.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by StevenCalder

Could you expand on this and describe this link?

If you are positing that unidentified things are the basis for this, it is still a argument from ignorance...

Umm... not really, I am simply providing evidence that there is an OBJECTIVELY REAL phenomena occurring that we, as yet, have no explanation for and we should therefore research it to see what we can find out about it.

[Lanzy]

This is an insanely huge number of links.

Have to pass.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

There were no daylight sightings unless you want to tack on a whole bunch of stories people told months later or associate some other events. When it comes down to it, there are only two events concerning the Arizona UFOs. One has been explained, the other has a reasonably plausible explanation for which there is reasonable anecdotal evidence for.

As for the scrambled fighter jets, no witnesses from the NUFORC database who saw the 8-8:30PM event report seeing F-15s or F-16s going after the V shaped formation of lights. These are just claims that can not be verified and are typical to the hype that UFOlogists like to add to a story to make it sound better.

Interesting that you pick on this case. I very nearly did NOT include it ...but as it WAS a very public case I thought it really did belong in the set. As you well know, it is (again) a case where debunkers and believers alike have strong arguments to support their respective cases. ALL I ask is that people take the time to read over exactly WHAT occurred (as reported) and THEN see if either side's explanation measures up to the reported facts.

I am NOT saying it is a case that has been "proven" one way or other ...merely that it IS a case that has caused much debate and controversy and I thought people should have at least the opportunity to "see for themselves" so to speak - thus it was a reference of convenience for people more than anything else.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

My proposal is to discuss the cases in turn, beginning with the “Aliens Throughout History” links and work through the list and see what eventuates.

This is a shotgun approach to this. You have just thrown a bunch of stuff up against the wall and hope some of it sticks. Have you read all of this or did you just post a bunch of links?

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Lanzy

This is an insanely huge number of links.

Have to pass.

Yes of course... that is your prerogative, but the evidence is there nevertheless - if you ever feel any curiosity toward the topic, just dip a toe in the water sometime - you don't have to read them all - you may even be surprised.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Interesting that you pick on this case. I very nearly did NOT include it

The case was discussed in this forum several times. I only "pick on it" because I have a pretty good knowledge of the specifics. I could easily have stated the Roswell case is also flawed since I have spent a lot of time looking at that as well. However, in that case, you have only three choices. It was a secret balloon project, an ACTUAL alien spaceship crash, or something else that the military was testing. I don't think you can say it was something "natural" that defied explanation.

[StevenCalder]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Yes, but then, according to that logic, in order to avoid being disingenuous, you must concede equally that UFOs COULD turn out to be explicable as ETs.

Absolutely, I've never denied it.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

So I am, on that basis, merely providing evidence to support the case that mundane (or "natural") explanations are NOT the answer - NOT that the answer IS ET.

Ah OK, that's a very odd way to go about it.

Given the massive amounts of possible explanations and constant possibility that you or your society's scientific level simply haven't thought of the other possible explanation that actually accounts for the event yet, that's not how you prove a hypothesis.

But if that's not your goal, I wish you luck!

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

This is a shotgun approach to this. You have just thrown a bunch of stuff up against the wall and hope some of it sticks. Have you read all of this or did you just post a bunch of links?

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

But Astrophotographer, people have been calling long and loud for me to present the evidence. I present it... and now... you imply they are saying ...oh, but that is TOO MUCH evidence!

And that is why I originally suggested the logical approach would be to take the first reference first, discuss that, then move on.

Perhaps I should be more precise. How about we DO take the first reference but limit discussion of it to say...oh..I don't know...a week... then we move on to the next...?

So, this being "my" thread, I would ask that people start with the UFOs in History references and discuss them (and ONLY them) for the next three or four days (or until we run out of ideas if that be the sooner), then we will move to the next case, and so on...would that make things more manageable?

[CurtC]

Do a whole bunch of very dubious reports now add up to a convincing case?

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

The case was discussed in this forum several times. I only "pick on it" because I have a pretty good knowledge of the specifics. I could easily have stated the Roswell case is also flawed since I have spent a lot of time looking at that as well. However, in that case, you have only three choices. It was a secret balloon project, an ACTUAL alien spaceship crash, or something else that the military was testing. I don't think you can say it was something "natural" that defied explanation.

Actually that is precisely why I ONLY posted links to Dr. Jesse M. It is HIS testimony that I am interested, nothing else. I think a discussion about HIS testimony might be interesting (IMHO)

But as I just posted, what about first things first?

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

Agreed. That's why I suggest that for now we simply focus on the Rogue River Sighting, and see where it leads us. I believe we could bring up valid points for all parties through that one case alone.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Do a whole bunch of very dubious reports now add up to a convincing case?

"Dubious" is an assumption based on what case or cases listed above that you have examined?

And as people well know my answer to this by now: Just stating that it IS so, does NOT make it so.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Agreed. That's why I suggest that for now we simply focus on the Rogue River Sighting, and see where it leads us. I believe we could bring up valid points for all parties through that one case alone.

...or Rogue River... all those in favour...? The ayes have it then?