A case for FACS

[Constance]

Again, a government grant to pay for analysis in deciding if someone is telling the truth about witnessing UFOs sightings? I don't see that happening.

Neither do I. Not just because funds are short either. A public-private research program involving the US government and ufo researchers is the last thing the government would want to get involved in. It would undermine both the claim that ufos are not taken seriously by gov't and military and the equally absurd claim that the whole shebang has been a light show produced worldwide by said government for some unstated, and unimaginable, purpose.

 

[boomerang]

In my opinion there is evidence enough of the physical-material reality of some ufos (and of their technological advancement) in the radar data, the ground trace evidence (e.g., anomalous effects in soil and plants, the indicated weight of some ufos that have bent railroad ties), the observed and measured velocities and gravity-defying maneuvres of many ufos, the demonstrated ability of some ufos to remotely disengage the electronics of military aircraft in their vicinity, to turn off their missile systems, the many cases of SAC missile shut-downs in the presence of ufos, and the eyewitness reports of 3-4,000 pilots (mostly military but also civilians) describing purposeful behavior of ufos during interactions with them. In addition there are the reports by physicists (made to Haisch and Mitchell) of back-engineering of crashed ufos they have worked on/are working on in black projects of the US military-industrial complex, and recent public remarks by several people high up in civilian aerospace corporations divulging their knowledge and implementation of such back-engineering. Besides which we have 65 years of investigative reports of sightings and landings around the world that correspond in major details. The recent theory discussed here by several Paracast guests and listeners proposing that all of the above can be explained as a massive ufo delusion perpetrated on the public [and indeed the militaries of the world] since the 1940s for some never-identified purpose strikes me as impossible and thus as absurd. Yes, there are 'insiders' but they do not have the power to mislead half or more of the planet with a 'meme'.

I think we almost, but not quite, agree on this issue, divided perhaps according to what constitutes unequivocal physical evidence. I think most of us here agree that the UFO, whatever its origins, physically interacts with our material universe. The question to my mind is whether it does so in a way that lends undeniable credence to "Joe Sixpack" as it were.

I am admittedly not aware of exactly what sensor generated data related to high strangeness reports is, or is not, available to the public upon request. The best known example would be radar data recorded by credible sources and presumably stored for long term retrieval. I frankly do not know in whose custody the best of such evidence rests, or if it is rendered up upon request for independent scrutiny with verifiable assurance that it has not been tampered with.

At least one such example of highly credible radar data is that recorded by the radar operator of a B-52 involved in the 1967 Minot incident. Perhaps we could regard this as unimpeachable as it is a classic Blue Book case, presumably compiled and presented by agencies covertly tasked with debunking. I cite this particular case because it was a personal eye-opener. The radar operator happens to be a former acquaintance and the epitome of the no-nonsense Air Force Colonel. I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as fraud. Although one must also wonder who, operating within the vast labyrinth of our government, is totally immune from deception.


There must be more such examples. Perhaps the Japan Airlines incident over Alaska is another. Although according to FAA division chief John Callahan, tracking evidence made its way into the public domain due only to an error on the part of the infamous "government men in suits", who somehow overlooked copies contained somewhere within the system. We can almost but not quite it seems, escape this proverbial hall of mirrors.

But in making the transition from highly credible testimony to unassailable physical evidence, I still think we come up short. The gap between belief system and hard science cannot yet be firmly bridged.

Shredding the laughter curtain with UFOs will be no easy task. Consider, for that matter, how difficult (and sometimes impossible) it has been to bring such well supported concepts as mankind as taxonomical primate and the expanding universe under the umbrella of accepted world view.