@CuCullen wrote: "
@Realm. Not wanting to bog you down, but what is your take on these ostensibly anomalous cases: Father Gill 1959, 1976 Tehran, RB-47 1957.
You "remember reading about those years ago, but not much else." This is poor stuff, Realm, unless you are in your dotage at this point. Both of those cases would have left an indelible imprint on your mind if you had read only one newsstory about each of them.
@CuCullen actually listed 3 cases if you count them, but since I don't regard the Gill case credible at all (I don't tend to trust fairy tales told by men whose job is to tell fairy tales), I guess it's all right to just speak about "both" of those other ones.
No, they haven't left an indelible imprint on me, I remembered just some general outline of that Tehran case. I actually read some summaries yesterday while considering should I try to tackle another one since I consider the Coyne case to be finished now, apart from the fine-tuning and additional information needed while handling the feedback and possibly editing the post for clarity. Both of those above cases seem to be so full of holes already that I don't know if I bother.
This Coyne case was supposedly among the very best as well, and see what just happened. Evidently my mind worked just fine if it used the storage space for something else instead.
Yes, you really should take 'a closer look' at these and many more cases, documents, and analyses before you start trying to dismiss the entire modern ufo phenomenon.
I have told here on several occasions how I have had an on/off interest on the subject. It may have been some 20 years ago when I last read something about that Tehran case for example. There just wasn't convincing enough evidence to keep the interest. The last time my interest peaked was the O'Hare case in 2006, which basically died out with no pictures, and so did my interest. It took a decade before the Nimitz case brought it back. Those two are my top 2, and I can't even name a third. And at the time at least, the actual evidence for both of those isn't too good, even if the testimonies are better.
In general, there's a worrying correlation between the availability of information and the credibility/life-time of the case. The TTSA Go "Fast" case for example had sufficient information to properly evaluate it, and it basically died on the same day it was published. Most of the cases that are featured on top-10 lists are pretty old ones, where sufficient information isn't available (anymore). At the moment the seventies seems to be the sweet spot where there might just be enough information for proper analysis.
The Coyne case was particularly good in that regard, as it had a lot of reported details and two viewpoints for the event. It had already lost a lot of credibility because of the details that had been dealt with, but apparently nobody just managed to figure out the overall narrative what was actually moving there. The meteor explanation quite obviously didn't work. That's now out of the window.
I don't think you actually realize the extent to which I can already explain the reported events. If I can find information there was a refueling track there (permanent or temporary due to Operation Nickel Grass), and it's key parameters, I could basically draw the 3D track of both aircraft with pretty good accuracy and explain how each of the movements looked as reported from their viewpoints. If I had found those original interviews publicly available, and there hadn't been copyright issues, I would have probably put those side by side with my descriptions that would have explained similarly step by step pretty much every detail. That's basically the way I read those interviews in my mind now. I reckon you will have a hard time seriously challenging the central narrative if you try, and I actually hope people try to do that.
I'm basically just missing the confirmation of that tanker being there, or the existence of that refueling track, which would be almost as good already. There are good reasons to expect those were there at the time, it's just the confirmation that's missing. I expect serious researchers will try to find such documents, if they still exist, once I push this beyond this forum.
