Debunkers....roll up...roll up....

[Goggs Mackay]

For those of us convinced of the UFO reality, it can be tiresome when the uninitiated innocently claim things like, 'UFOs don't really exist because, well, we'd know about it if they did...'

Of course as with many subjects, even esoteric ones, knowing exactly where to look helps when trying to pin down the salient information.
There are a few documentary places one can look at from the history of Ufology for absolutely bombshell statements/information and although many have been a matter of public record for a long time, you still need to seek them out and let's face it, Joe Public rarely bothers his arse to go find the low-down on the UFO subject. We can hardly blame the average person for being ignorant of these documents when you really need an already-existing interest in Ufology before bothering to go look for them. In fact, most people would not bother looking unless they were already convinced of the UFO reality - and they may not get convinced of the UFO reality if they don't get to see these bombshell documents. One of life's lovely little Catch-22's.

I personally cannot understand why these doc's aren't front-page and headline news. If correct, they only refer to probably the most important subject ever to face mankind!

I really hope I attract a few of our more skeptical members to view the link I am posting, but just in case they maybe don't get around to doing so, I will copy and paste (so that's verbatim) a most interesting statement contained near the beginning of a document available online from the UK Government. The document details a study into UAP's - read into that classic UFOs + other aerial phenomena.

So, here is the quote:

'That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land, take-off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned.'

Here is the link:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....4CC09617BCFF/0/uap_exec_summary_dec00_pt1.pdf

So that is the official view of the department of Military Intelligence tasked with looking into the subject, and by extension, the Government of the UK.

There is zero room left for interpretation, for thinking they are talking about foreign aircraft or earth-lights or ball-lightning etc. They are 100% referring to intelligently controlled, structured craft not of known human design.
This is by far not the only official document to indicate that officaldom does actually believe in UFOs but it might be the one with the least room for interpretation.

Skeptics....have at it, let me know what goes through your mind when reading this.

 

[Burnt State]

I think the important word in the equation is "credited" which suggests that Gov't is not saying this themselves or confirming these acrobatics, but simply that other observers are crediting the UAP'S with these abilities. And these abilities appear to do things that are beyond our technology. But the only indisputable part is that UAP's exist.

I'm interested in the book that Constance referenced in the Ray Stanford thread and that Ted Roe cited right off the top in his response to critical books to read re: Paul Hill
Ray Stanford — May 18, 2014 Episode

 

[PCarr]

For those of us convinced of the UFO reality, it can be tiresome when the uninitiated innocently claim things like, 'UFOs don't really exist because, well, we'd know about it if they did...'

Of course as with many subjects, even esoteric ones, knowing exactly where to look helps when trying to pin down the salient information.
There are a few documentary places one can look at from the history of Ufology for absolutely bombshell statements/information and although many have been a matter of public record for a long time, you still need to seek them out and let's face it, Joe Public rarely bothers his arse to go find the low-down on the UFO subject. We can hardly blame the average person for being ignorant of these documents when you really need an already-existing interest in Ufology before bothering to go look for them. In fact, most people would not bother looking unless they were already convinced of the UFO reality - and they may not get convinced of the UFO reality if they don't get to see these bombshell documents. One of life's lovely little Catch-22's.

I personally cannot understand why these doc's aren't front-page and headline news. If correct, they only refer to probably the most important subject ever to face mankind!

I really hope I attract a few of our more skeptical members to view the link I am posting, but just in case they maybe don't get around to doing so, I will copy and paste (so that's verbatim) a most interesting statement contained near the beginning of a document available online from the UK Government. The document details a study into UAP's - read into that classic UFOs + other aerial phenomena.

So, here is the quote:

'That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land, take-off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned.'

Here is the link:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....4CC09617BCFF/0/uap_exec_summary_dec00_pt1.pdf

So that is the official view of the department of Military Intelligence tasked with looking into the subject, and by extension, the Government of the UK.

There is zero room left for interpretation, for thinking they are talking about foreign aircraft or earth-lights or ball-lightning etc. They are 100% referring to intelligently controlled, structured craft not of known human design.
This is by far not the only official document to indicate that officaldom does actually believe in UFOs but it might be the one with the least room for interpretation.

Skeptics....have at it, let me know what goes through your mind when reading this.

I don't think it's very interesting. It's just an interpretation, and there does not seem to be any scientific weight behind it. If there were some new data offered, that would be different, but I don't see it.

There is a fundamental problem here that isn't going to go away easily, and that is the "U" in "UAP." We have a negative definition - UAPs are unidentifieds, and that is all. But what ARE they? Well, we know that many of the are ordinary things misinterpreted, and some more of them are less ordinary but still man made things misinterpreted. How do you form a scientific hypothesis that the residual are true unknowns? This is really a stumbling point. without a hypothesis, it doesn't mean much to talk about evidence.

We have to recognize that with UAPs are not in the zone of Normal Science in which hypotheses supported by an established body of theory can be put forth, and we can determine whether the data we have is evidence for or against a given hypothesis.
Proper skepticism recognizes this problem and then prohibits fallacious jumping to conclusions. We have work to do. Humility is called for.

 

[marduk]

The British government also be lived that tomatoes were an aphrodisiac and had them banned in the 1700s.

The core problem with this subject is that this phenomenon isn't replicable.

Until it is, or we have overwhelming evidence, it's just opinion.

 

[IsaacKoi]

So that is the official view of the department of Military Intelligence tasked with looking into the subject, and by extension, the Government of the UK.

There is zero room left for interpretation, for thinking they are talking about foreign aircraft or earth-lights or ball-lightning etc. They are 100% referring to intelligently controlled, structured craft not of known human design.

Hi Goggs,

You may be interested in a lengthy analysis of that document (i.e. the Project Condign Report) that I posted on the UFO Updates email discussion back in 2006 a few days before the report was made available on the Ministry of Defence's website:
Valuable UK UFO Project


The report was not prepared by a "department of Military Intelligence" but rather, as I explain in much more detail at the above link, the Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the relevant fields, and

(b) without involving any consultation with ufologists to determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of
that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments opposing that theory.

A substantial quantity of the content of the material relating to plasmas etc in the Condign Report (e.g. Working Paper 10 on Earthlights) is taken from readily identifiable UFO literature. When I say the material is "taken from readily identifiable UFO literature", I do not merely mean that that author has done a literature survey and has summarized the most relevant evidence and arguments. Instead, in at least some cases, the author of
the Condign report has lifted material almost verbatim.

The Condign Report shows an awareness of (and takes material from) an extremely small number of UFO books. It is possible to identify the influence of certain books by Jenny Randles and Paul Devereux.

 

[Burnt State]

Hi Goggs,

You may be interested in a lengthy analysis of that document (i.e. the Project Condign Report) that I posted on the UFO Updates email discussion back in 2006 a few days before the report was made available on the Ministry of Defence's website:
Valuable UK UFO Project


The report was not prepared by a "department of Military Intelligence" but rather, as I explain in much more detail at the above link, the Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the relevant fields, and

(b) without involving any consultation with ufologists to determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of
that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments opposing that theory.

A substantial quantity of the content of the material relating to plasmas etc in the Condign Report (e.g. Working Paper 10 on Earthlights) is taken from readily identifiable UFO literature. When I say the material is "taken from readily identifiable UFO literature", I do merely mean that that author has done a literature survey and has summarized the most relevant evidence and arguments. Instead, in at least some cases, the author of
the Condign report has lifted material almost verbatim.

The Condign Report shows an awareness of (and takes material from) an extremely small number of UFO books. It is possible to identify the influence of certain books by Jenny Randles and Paul Devereux.

But isn't this the report that Nick Pope is using as support for his most recent interpretation of Rendlehsam? And isn't Ufology riddled with this broken chain of MJ12 documents, littered with invalidations & inventions and then in turn used freely to continue to define ufology as a fractured flapoodle of fragmented facts and fictions?

 

[Jimi H.]

The very last statement on page 6 is that "they are comprised of several types of rarely encountered natural events within the atmosphere and ionosphere".

 

[IsaacKoi]

But isn't this the report that Nick Pope is using as support for his most recent interpretation of Rendlehsam?

Yes, this is the Condign Report which Nick Pope has referred to in his Rendlesham book (and had referred to in various items over the last 8 years or so).

And isn't Ufology riddled with this broken chain of MJ12 documents, littered with invalidations & inventions and then in turn used freely to continue to define ufology as a fractured flapoodle of fragmented facts and fictions?

I don't think the Condign Report has anything to do with the MJ12 documents.

The Condign Report was released by the British Ministry of Defence in 2006 (and various documents relating to the production of that report have been released since then). The provenance of the Condign Report is clear.

The content of the MJ12 documents is more exciting (crashed UFOs, alien autopsy etc) than the content of the Condign Report, but the provenance of the MJ12 documents is, um, unclear. (Okay, to be a bit more direct, the MJ12 documents are very probably a complete hoax and the identity of at least one person involved in the hoax is fairly well known).

 

[Burnt State]

I was thinking more in the line of how documents, whether they have provenance or not, are often riddled with either perspectives, supposed facts and determinations that may in fact not be accurate at all but are used nonetheless to advance ufology and define its directions. Whether or not this is a sound academic approach seems to be constantly disregarded. it would not surprise me in the least to see a ufologist treat the UFO Encyclopaedia, the Condign Report, MJ12 and the Project Aquarius document as equal statements.

 

[boomerang]

There is a fundamental problem here that isn't going to go away easily, and that is the "U" in "UAP." We have a negative definition - UAPs are unidentifieds, and that is all. But what ARE they? Well, we know that many of the are ordinary things misinterpreted, and some more of them are less ordinary but still man made things misinterpreted. How do you form a scientific hypothesis that the residual are true unknowns? This is really a stumbling point. without a hypothesis, it doesn't mean much to talk about evidence.

I think the fundamental evidence is of high strangeness things repeatedly seen in the sky, sometimes by multiple witnesses and occasionally leaving behind scant trace evidence in the form of burn marks or radar data.
Forming a scientific hypothesis based on this would seem problematical at best. One cannot study that which is evasive and seemingly in almost complete control. And yet, the UAP/UFO exists by virtue of its persistent presentation before qualified human observers. Perhaps things that intelligently and selectively demonstrate themselves to exist, and things amenable to human scientific study are in separate categories.

 

[marduk]

I think science doesn't have a problem with saying that unknown things are sometimes seen in our atmosphere.

I think science does want to distance itself from the cranks that do inhabit this field that claim unknowns = alien spacecraft.

Again, this field is not replicable, therefore is difficult for science to engage in.

 

[Burnt State]

One cannot study that which is evasive and seemingly in almost complete control. And yet, the UAP/UFO exists by virtue of its persistent presentation before qualified human observers. Perhaps things that intelligently and selectively demonstrate themselves to exist, and things amenable to human scientific study are in separate categories.

That's it.

It's always been outside of us: outside of our science, our language and our senses. It's a puzzle that's a part of other puzzles. Humanity has been very good with puzzles during our "ten seconds to midnight" brief existence here on earth. After all we made pyramids, landed on the moon, can see into the deepest reaches of the universe and mess with DNA. I have great faith that one day some very creative human is going to have herself a good think and figure out a good chunk of this enduring & ephemeral mystery. One day.

 

[Constance]

I think the important word in the equation is "credited" which suggests that Gov't is not saying this themselves or confirming these acrobatcs, but simply that other observers are crediting the UAP'S with these abilities.

I'm wondering what you mean by "Gov't," Burnt. In the US, would the 'crediting' of the reality and anomalousness of ufos have to come from the President, for example (who we know not to have been 'in the loop' on this subject since Truman and Eisenhower), or from the Congress? The fact is that ufo information in the US is (and has been for decades) deeply compartmented among military and intelligence agencies and private corporations contracted to them, and none of them report to the Congress, the President, or the public. By contrast, when ufos began appearing in waves over the US in the late 40s, especially over US military bases and nuclear weapons research and storage sites, prominent individuals in the military and in science (generals, admirals, rocket scientists, scientists employed at Los Alamos and other nuclear research sites) recognized and stated that some ufos were real, not ours, and unmistakably beyond our technology. The French 'Government' itself has not shared with the public its viewpoint concerning ufos, but individual scientists and military personnel at the highest levels who were involved in investigating ufo events and trace evidence in France over several decades issued the COMETA Report declaring that the ETH is 'the best available hypothesis' to account for what they had learned from the cases they studied. Like the scientific and military insiders in the US that I mentioned above, the COMETA group based their judgment that ufos were 'not ours' on radar-visual events, scientific analysis of trace evidence on the ground and in plants, and the reports of skilled pilots (military and private) who had interacted with ufos. So it's misleading to say that we have only the reports of ordinary people concerning the 'acrobatics' of ufos.

I think science doesn't have a problem with saying that unknown things are sometimes seen in our atmosphere.

I think science does want to distance itself from the cranks that do inhabit this field that claim unknowns = alien spacecraft.

Again, this field is not replicable, therefore is difficult for science to engage in.

What makes you think that only 'cranks' consider the ETH to be the best available hypothesis? Have you read the COMETA Report? Can you describe its authors as cranks? Going back to Don Berliner's UFO Briefing Document published in 1995, you'll find a resume of statements by many other non-cranks in the military and scientific establishment who also judged the ETH to be the best available hypothesis. They all had informed reasons for thinking so, and it is those reasons that need to be recalled and recognized. To recognize them we need to read the history of the phenomenon since WWII. A good way to catch up, as of 1995, is to read Don Berliner's UFO Briefing Document at the link below. The COMETA Report is also essential reading.

http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/Rockefeller-Briefing-Document.pdf

[note: This document records early recognition by the military of the concentration of ufos over nuclear weapons facilities and bases, a pattern that has continued and become magnified in the decades since as demonstrated by Robert Hastings's research.]

 

[marduk]

I think a great many in the scientific community would indeed think the cometa report is utter rubbish. I know some of them. I'm not saying that I think they are cranks, I'm saying academia does.

Remember that this entire field has been discredited.

Just like 90% of reports are misidentifications, I would say 90% of what has been published on this matter is outright falsehood or pure speculation.

 

[Wade]

The very last statement on page 6 is that "they are comprised of several types of rarely encountered natural events within the atmosphere and ionosphere".

I caught that too but at the same time I'd like to know what the report meant by
"...However, the study has uncovered a number of technological issues that may be of potential defence interest..."

and why the military would feel compelled to initially classify a document that after acknowledging there are certain aspects that are reported that would seem to defy natural phenomena ( "credited with the ability to etc. ") it goes out of it's way to show...via the key findings...that there are other more mundane explanation which aren't really debatable. Like that really needs to be hidden from the eyes of British citizens for 10 + years?

 

[Burnt State]

I'm wondering what you mean by "Gov't," Burnt.

In this case I referring to Goggs citing this particular statement as something being promoted by the UK gov't. and not an overriding statement regarding who historically has validated this phenomenon.

 

[Constance]

I think a great many in the scientific community would indeed think the cometa report is utter rubbish. I know some of them.

You seem to claim to know some members of 'the scientific community' whom you think would consider the Cometa Report to be 'utter rubbish'? Or do you mean you know, or know of, some such persons who have published that viewpoint? If the latter, can you cite their reviews and judgments?

Remember that this entire field has been discredited.

Really? By whom, when, and where?

Just like 90% of reports are misidentifications, I would say 90% of what has been published on this matter is outright falsehood or pure speculation.

You might say that, but would it be true? That would depend on which publications you're referring to. Have you read them all? Have you read the most reliable, well-investigated books in the field?

 

[Jimi H.]

I caught that too but at the same time I'd like to know what the report meant by
"...However, the study has uncovered a number of technological issues that may be of potential defence interest..."

Well, for instance if a (naturally occuring) foo fighter can create disturbances to electronic instruments, or even hallucinations in the observer, it might be relevant for some military dude to start sending foo fighters at enemy planes.

Perhaps that would also explain why the paper was classified, because it could point to future weapons systems? Yet, maybe the reason it got declassified is that noone deemed it realistic to exploit the knowledge gained from e.g. foo fighter reports?

Or was the mere acknowledgement of UAP's enough to classify a report?

 

[Jimi H.]

I think a great many in the scientific community would indeed think the cometa report is utter rubbish. I know some of them. I'm not saying that I think they are cranks, I'm saying academia does.
...

I'm also curious why someone would think it was utter rubbish? Because of the people involved, the methodology employed, or because the data was too little or too poor in quality to reach even an apprehensive conclusion?

 

[marduk]

You seem to claim to know some members of 'the scientific community' whom you think would consider the Cometa Report to be 'utter rubbish'? Or do you mean you know, or know of, some such persons who have published that viewpoint? If the latter, can you cite their reviews and judgments?

I have friends and extended family members in academia... professors, workings scientists, the like.

I've broached the subject and I get a similar response to Hawking when he says "UFOs only appear to cranks and weirdos." I won't claim to say it's a unified front, but it is clear to me that this whole area is verboten to credible scientists seeking grants, tenure, and the like.

This can't come as a surprise to you.

Really? By whom, when, and where?

Wikipedia:

Thomas Djamaluddin, research professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Lapan stated: "We have come to agree that this 'thing' cannot be scientifically proven. Scientists have put UFOs in the category of pseudoscience.​

Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, I'm neither claiming academia is completely unified or justifying their response. What I am saying is that this field is considered not to exist in the way that those interested or have had experiences feel that it exists.

When I look at my local bookseller in the "new age" section, I can see why. Books like Kean's recent work and other luminaries aside, one only needs to go to a UFO convention or open a book at random in the field and see why.

You might say that, but would it be true? That would depend on which publications you're referring to. Have you read them all? Have you read the most reliable, well-investigated books in the field?

What I'm saying is that I don't believe it matters any more. Whatever is generating this phenomena could end the secrecy in a heartbeat if it wanted to, and it doesn't.

Governments have created this wonderful situation where they laugh at the phenomena, hoard data (even I'm not convinced the Canadian government has released the good stuff), is probably baffled on the subject, and yet everyone goes to them as positions of authority seeking answers. Talk about letting them hold all the cards.

Scientific academia also sits back and belly laughs at the whole ordeal. No-one will get real funding for this, will risk their career on this, will risk tenure on this. And yet we unwashed masses cry out to them: believe us! This time we have real data!

All the while the Griers and Hoaglands and the rest continue to muddy the waters.

Sometimes the best way to win is not to play the game at all. I'm personally not interested in validation from the idiots we elect or the close minded fools in their ivory towers who already have decreed this does not exist. I believe in the scientific method, and it's uses. But the establishment will not even deign to look (with some small exceptions perhaps) until something dramatic happens.