What if there are NO anomalous Ufos?

[Simonemendez]

If you search around you can find that a good amount of study was done on these photos and they have been deemed 'real' by one or two experts.

Thanks, but if one of those experts was Maccabee, weeeelllllllllll, uhhhhhh, it's like, he was one who approved of the Ed Walters Ufo, which I am convinced that whole mystery was not so much, but rather, a good ol fashioned hoax.

 

[Ron Collins]

OK Hoff seems unrealistic to me a helium solid object is what you saw. I however wasn't there to witness this. But, An object filed with Helium is terribly slow moving and i would suggest to you this object would have been very visible on Radar. Therefore it likely Military Jets would have been scrambled and this object would have been intercepted by jet fighters in quick succession. This object couldn't get away Hoff, it was helium filled for God sake if your right.
If it was a secret still classified American craft i would seriously doubt it was helium filled.

I believe it is called the "Stealth Blimp" and it is supposedly a night flight platform for long term aerial surveillance of the battlefield as well as a mobile command and communications hub. From the buzz on the military forums, it is a key component to the FFW(Future Force Warrior) command and control arm sponsored by DARPA and the US Army.

The blimp is also rumored to use technological camouflage for daylight missions. Apparently the underside of the blimp is covered in multi-colored LED's that in essence mimic the sky above as seen from top mounted camera's. This is supposed to make the blimp nearly invisible from the ground.

I agree that a hydrogen filed balloon is old technology and on some level almost laughable. But wrapped in new technology one can easily see that it is a plausible and economic solution.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran,
To put things in perspective, you know the old addage; 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Fact is, to my best knowledge, no extraordinary evidence has been provided as of yet. The debate, of course, is what qualifies as 'evidence'. As usual, the devil is in the details.
I see both sides in this arguement using inconsistent logic to support their point of view. A sign that neither side has really thought the arguments through and they are arguing past each other, probably because of emotions or their belief system.
I don't want to come off as 'holier than though' here. I don't have any answers either. I would put it this way: Overall, the best we can say right now is that we appear to have grounds for rejecting hypothesis that 'there are NO anomalous Ufos'. Everything else is open to debate.

For me, Genuine UFO's are either man made, or there something else entirely.

Some and maybe indeed, a large number of UFO sightings are not Alien spacecraft ( The Object was misidentified by the individual) Maybe, an Atmospheric illusion at the time fooled this person into believing he saw something otherworldly or perhaps the planet Venus was the cause of their sighting.

I still stand by what i said if the UFO Phenomenon was bogus we wouldn't have the amount of material we do have. Some people ( not Kids) probably believe in Loch ness Monster or "Santa Claus doesn't make it so. There is very little information there to confirm does other claims, but the wealth of material on UFO's and Ghosts for out way any other Paranormal subject that we would care to discuss.

I've seen these things (UFO'S) Perhaps I do get emotional more than i should about this subject.
But i had a sighting in the 90's, which i posted here, when i joined the forums in 2008. The interesting thing about my sighting is.There was a file released by the MOD( not the Irish Government) The Ministry of Defence in the Uk Remember this.

In 2009 i read it and that can be found on the internet ( i look to find if someone is interested) This file talked about major sightings over Ireland during the early 1990's during the Month of March and the Earlier Summer months.

The reports described how Citizens across Ireland saw coloured lights streaking across the sky and Irish Fighters Jets were scrambled to intercept this object but found nothing according to the report.. So My sighting in the 90's was actually confirmed somewhat a year after i posted it here and I believe i discussed this with Hoff in a number of posts back then. If you can remember Hoff? Simone what i saw that day was not build by the "United states" or by any other country foreign to you or me. Trust me the United states does not own or have this type of technology within there Arsenal. I will eat my clothes, i am wearing right now, if i completely wrong on this. But the fact is the sky was effected just before these objects entered my view of vision, and there is no possible way any known human technology could have effected the sky like it did when i saw these objects. TO you the poster of this post. Maybe you will understand better now why i have the views that i do when it comes to this subject.

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

I believe it is called the "Stealth Blimp" and it is supposedly a night flight platform for long term aerial surveillance of the battlefield as well as a mobile command and communications hub. From the buzz on the military forums, it is a key component to the FFW(Future Force Warrior) command and control arm sponsored by DARPA and the US Army.

The blimp is also rumored to use technological camouflage for daylight missions. Apparently the underside of the blimp is covered in multi-colored LED's that in essence mimic the sky above as seen from top mounted camera's. This is supposed to make the blimp nearly invisible from the ground.

I agree that a hydrogen filed balloon is old technology and on some level almost laughable. But wrapped in new technology one can easily see that it is a plausible and economic solution.

It that concept or an actual real design Ron that is what we need to find out if possible. Any video or photos (Artists impression of this craft) that your aware of?

 

[Kieran]

Yes, for McMinnville there are quite a few questions that bring doubt into my mind for the case. While most of these discrepancies are well-known, I note that Paul's film sequence on the case mentions not even one of them.

1. Time photo was taken. Robert Sheaffer has done some noteworthy work showing that the photos were most likely taken early in the morning and not in the evening as claimed. Maccabee went out of his way to try to show that a cloud could provide the same type of shadows as are seen in the photos but I think his shadows are much more diffuse than the ones in the picture.

2. Trents were Repeaters And had claimed to have seen UFOs on other occasions-this is, of course, not proof that the photos are fake but it does give some insight on the Trents. It's also usually avoided when describing the case as Paul did.

3. Changing Story Mrs. Trent claimed in different contemporaneous accounts that her husband was both inside and outside when she first saw the disk.

4. More Changing Story Mrs. Trent, over time, added on witnesses who supposedly also saw the UFO. And (reading Maccabee's transcript of a conversation) she apparently did this often. To me she also seems evasive when Maccabee asks her how to contact one of these ersatz witnesses.

5. Maccabee It may be the elephant in the room but anyone who confirmed the authenticity of the Ed Walters photos is an idiot. Maccabee has proven himself unworthy of trust by this action and I find his reconstruction of McMinnville (which makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be accurate) to be subject to error. He found that the intersection of the two photos was 4 feet behind the wires that some skeptics think may have been the suspension point for the model. But I think the margin for error could easily account for this. I am not aware where Paul got his further data about the exact location of the disk but I would like to see the paper.

Sheaffer thinks he sees a bundle of wires that may have suspended a model. I am not convinced that what he is seeing is not just dirt on the negative. Others have cited the asymmetry of the "superstructure" of the disk as evidence that it is manmade. I am not convinced that this means anything either. In other words, I don't just accept every skeptical note on the case.


So do the above items prove that McMinnville is a hoax? No.


The striking thing is that this was presented as the one of the best cases (something I don't doubt). To me me this says a lot about the overall quality of the evidence. To you it may say something else entirely.

Lance

Lance i just had a quick glance at a website that mentions this sighting and there is photographs. Was the photograph taken when the object was flying pass the house or was it taken when the object was stationary? What information is there about this that your aware of? I not aware of this sighting all that much personally.

 

[softbeard]

...
I still stand by what i said if the UFO Phenomenon was bogus we wouldn't have the amount of material we do have....

Kieran,
Now on that point I completely agree with you. This is what got me interested in giving the 'UFO phenomenon' a second look. My original opinion was that it's mostly misidentification, plus hoax, along with some new-age religion wishful-thinking thrown in. Of course at that point I hadn't researched the topic at all.
But, as time went on, it became apparent to me that the UFO topic wasn't going away the way most new-age fads do. This is what makes me suspicious. It seems to me, that behind all the smoke, there is something real that is driving this.
I realize the above argument is completely general, and I'm not touching any of the evidence on either side of the argument. btw; to be clear, I, personally, have never witnessed anything anomolous, but then I don't look very much.
As for the theory that a significant fraction of these anomolous sightings are actually 'black' US military projects; I find that very dubious at best and laughable at worst. I really think the US Air Force has better things to do than to fly their secret 'black' projects around, scaring the crap out of people.

 

[Ron Collins]

Whoooooooooo there is INTENSE EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT in Ufos being otherworldly (including cryptoterrestrials and ghosts as well as extraterrestrial people) and I say this as someone who has seen these 'Ufos'. Otherwise, why-------would some of you react so angrily?

I do not think people are angry. I have seen angry on this forum and this is not it. The abruptness that is inherent here is because we have a whole lot to say but have to keep the response text small. so people will read it. longer posts get ignored. So it i hard to convey politeness in short posts.

What I see after a long time in Ufology, is that, every sighting (including military filmed things) boils down to------blobby lights and triangles that are most likely USAF. (Why do those things always happen to be seen mostly near Air Force bases, otherwise?)

You need to look at more cases. Yes typically, in the U.S., craft are seen within 50 to 75 miles of a military installation. However, you need more information. You need to know that there are military installations located in close proximity to every major populated area in the U.S. Thus, it is not exactly a smoking gun. More populated area equals more chances to witness these craft. You could conversely argue that UFO's are typically seen with 20 miles of a McDonald's therefore it must be a viral ad campaign to sell hamburgers. Also, you have to take in observations outside of the U.S. as well and then you see a drop off of proximity to military installations.

Also, you must also consider the probability that a top secret program would choose to fly their craft over populated US ATC (air traffic controlled) airspace in a manner against FAA regulations (no transponder squawk) and without contacting the approach ATC. This, regardless of military, commercial, or private aviation is a very serious infringement. Do not make the ill informed statement that the military can do what they want. They still must follow safety guidelines or be subject to punishment. This can include the pilot going to jail and paying very steep fines. Black projects would not risk exposure in this manner. This is why they build bases in the middle of nowhere and put a few hundred mile air quarantine zones around it.

I am **NOT** impressed with the Rendle-sham case. I am convinced they were chasing the lighthouse light. Please do not give me a dissertation on why it was not the lighthouse light.

Literally, to my mind, the only thing the UFO Hunters show has done for Ufology as a whole was put the nail in the lighthouse coffin. There is a steel plate that acts as a shield for the lighthouse beam so that it does not shoot back inland. It has been there since the lighthouse was built and makes it impossible to be the source. If you doubt this then you are going on belief and belief alone, not reason or taking positive evidence to formulate your opinion.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran,
Now on that point I completely agree with you. This is what got me interested in giving the 'UFO phenomenon' a second look. My original opinion was that it's mostly misidentification, plus hoax, along with some new-age religion wishful-thinking thrown in. Of course at that point I hadn't researched the topic at all.
But, as time went on, it became apparent to me that the UFO topic wasn't going away the way most new-age fads do. This is what makes me suspicious. It seems to me, that behind all the smoke, there is something real that is driving this.
I realize the above argument is completely general, and I'm not touching any of the evidence on either side of the argument. btw; to be clear, I, personally, have never witnessed anything anomolous, but then I don't look very much.
As for the theory that a significant fraction of these anomolous sightings are actually 'black' US military projects; I find that very dubious at best and laughable at worst. I really think the US Air Force has better things to do than to fly their secret 'black' projects around, scaring the crap out of people.

Well i think, we still have to be open to the possibility, there maybe secrets that we are not aware of ie unknown craft. I don't however, believe the US would fly classified craft over populated areas or even countries not allied to them. The risk is too great for the pilot or pilots. The craft itself, is at risk of being shoot down flying over foreign soil and i don't believe the ( US or Whomever) would take the risk of losing High end advanced technology to a foreign country. Would they?

The stealth bomber remember was tested in the deserts of New Mexico perfectly isolated from large pockets of civilians, but still tested in a country from were it was build. Some of these Triangles sightings for instance make claims the craft seen were over 400 feet long or 600 feet long. I seriouslly doubt there is technology to keep a craft this size in the air unless it is a blip of some sort?

 

[softbeard]

Kieran,
re the 'black' project hypothesis: Check RonCollins post above yours. I think he argues it in more detail than I did.
And yeah, I realize people really are seeing anomolous things flying about. As you have. btw, what specifically, did you mean in your previous post 'affecting the sky' when you talk about your sighting in Ireland?

 

[Kieran]

Hi Kieran,

The object was said to be moving into and then out of sight as it passed obliquely by the Trent farm.

Lance

Thats interesting if true considering the time 1950's. I see an object in the photo. The object looks a "Nut and bolts" object so to speak to me. But how readily available was a camera to the average citizen in the 1950's? The picture looks set up to me. From studying it.
Like how fast would the person who took the photo, need to be, to get to their home and locate a camera and set it up and take a perfect picture before the UFO was gone?

If the object was flying pass there home. "Unless" they had a camera phone( not available then) or a camera close by. I would seriously doubt this picture (photo) was a genuine UFO?
but there is in my opinion a object there in the Photo. But that doesn't equate to UFO.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

Kieran,
re the 'black' project hypothesis: Check RonCollins post above yours. I think he argues it in more detail than I did.
And yeah, I realize people really are seeing anomolous things flying about. As you have. btw, what specifically, did you mean in your previous post 'affecting the sky' when you talk about your sighting in Ireland?

I'm online too long as it is today. It a bank holiday today for us working Folks so it good. What do i mean it hard to explain really.
The sky is either blue skies, patchy cloud or fully cloudy agreed. This day in particular was a clear blue skied day.
There is a longer story here leading up to it and i witnessed this with four other people in my teenagers years. I'm 32 years old as of today but i not really in the mood to write a long version of it again to be honest. But to answer your specific question. I saw a number of long type stretched lights ( they resembled a school ruler) they flew pass my light of sight high up in the air.

There was a couple of green lights, a Red one that flew pass us at lighting speed, and a blue one came after them, but that blue light morphed from being a long ruler shape into a ball just above us for some reason. The Blue light changed back again and flew after the other lights. The sky changed back to what the sky should have been when the blue light left.

What happened to the sky; Before i saw the objects. The sky experienced a static blue Shock effect, a pulsating of some sort really hard to describe with words. Continuing flashing was occurring just before these objects came into my line of sight. Sometimes due to Length of time/ since i saw this. I wonder did this actually happen but friends of mine assure me all the time. It happened.

 

[Kieran]

Hi Kieran,

Even though I am skeptical about these photos, I don't think your objections completely apply here. Snapshot cameras were readily available (and extremely popular) and it certainly is possible that if such an object had come slowly flying by (must have been very slow since Mrs. Trent said the camera was inside the house) that the photos could have been taken. And I definitely agree that there is a real object shown in the photos (no evidence has been presented of double exposure or other photography tricks).

To digress slightly, I have to mention how much I love the Trent photos as art: they are such an iconic and beautiful representation of the flying saucer mythology. There is sort of a lonely and forlorn aspect also that I find very appealing.

Lance

That was my point in a way Lance. If the UFO was moving faster than the photo suggests. I would seriously doubt she would have enough time to take a picture being that the case. A slowing move UFO more probable a UFO doing a fast speed less probable. The photo is not blurry so the Object was slow moving i guess.

 

[TClaeys]

Literally, to my mind, the only thing the UFO Hunters show has done for Ufology as a whole was put the nail in the lighthouse coffin. There is a steel plate that acts as a shield for the lighthouse beam so that it does not shoot back inland. It has been there since the lighthouse was built and makes it impossible to be the source. If you doubt this then you are going on belief and belief alone, not reason or taking positive evidence to formulate your opinion.

Well, this thread has sprouted many new branches, which is fine, but it seems conversation is going all over the place now, .... so let me join in.

I'm confused as to why this little note about the lighthouse was not discovered earlier. Was it?? Did anyone mention this in the incredible amount of research that has been done?? I saw this on UFO hunters and thought, "well, I've never heard that before !". But the thought still does occur to me that fog could reflect or even illuminate the area around the light so that is would still be visible from farther away. Is that a possibility do you think??

Skeptics say that the lighthouse is the culprit although there certainly seems to be more to the few nights than just the lighthouse. But I haven't heard any rebuttal on the shielded light. Just trying to get more information as to how this would be explained if the light was not able to be seen directly. And the only thing I can think of is fog or something else reflecting that light.

 

[trainedobserver]

Thanks, but if one of those experts was Maccabee, weeeelllllllllll, uhhhhhh, it's like, he was one who approved of the Ed Walters Ufo, which I am convinced that whole mystery was not so much, but rather, a good ol fashioned hoax.

I don't know about Gulf Breeze. There were witnesses other than the Walters and other photographs taken as well. In reading his books I vacillate between believing that something truly anomalous occurred in Gulf Breeze and not. Some things are just really curious. Like the "liquid" that dropped from one UFO which continued to "boil" at room temperature yet Walters sample didn't "boil away." Was this ever analyzed by anyone? It just seems like bad fiction. Yet, the stereo photographs, the video, the multiple witnesses, ... it makes you wonder why such an elaborate and embarrassing hoax?

 

[Simonemendez]

Also, you must also consider the probability that a top secret program would choose to fly their craft over populated US ATC (air traffic controlled) airspace in a manner against FAA regulations (no transponder squawk) and without contacting the approach ATC. This, regardless of military, commercial, or private aviation is a very serious infringement. Do not make the ill informed statement that the military can do what they want. They still must follow safety guidelines or be subject to punishment. This can include the pilot going to jail and paying very steep fines. Black projects would not risk exposure in this manner. This is why they build bases in the middle of nowhere and put a few hundred mile air quarantine zones around it.

Hey Ron Collins, this is a serious infringement too. Of our right to privacy.

Scroll down to ABC News, Alien Blimps Over Salt Lake City http://justgetthere.us/blog/plugin/tag/Surveillance/P6.html

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

I believe it is called the "Stealth Blimp" and it is supposedly a night flight platform for long term aerial surveillance of the battlefield as well as a mobile command and communications hub. From the buzz on the military forums, it is a key component to the FFW(Future Force Warrior) command and control arm sponsored by DARPA and the US Army. The blimp is also rumored to use technological camouflage for daylight missions. Apparently the underside of the blimp is covered in multi-colored LED's that in essence mimic the sky above as seen from top mounted camera's. This is supposed to make the blimp nearly invisible from the ground. I agree that a hydrogen filed balloon is old technology and on some level almost laughable. But wrapped in new technology one can easily see that it is a plausible and economic solution.

This is extremely interesting that it's underside is covered in multi-colored LEDs. Those could project deceptive images to a civillian, no? Or no image (invisibility)?

 

[Ron Collins]

Hey Ron Collins, this is a serious infringement too. Of our right to privacy.

Scroll down to ABC News, Alien Blimps Over Salt Lake City http://justgetthere.us/blog/plugin/tag/Surveillance/P6.html

Wow, that is interesting. Border security will no doubt turn into drug interdiction duty and then to tracking traffickers in order to make other busts. Now I dont exactly have a problem with that. Yet, I can also see where this is a gateway technology (to continue the theme) whereby other agencies start to deploy similar technology employed by less altruistic concerns than border security and stopping illicit drug traffic. Thank you Bush and thank you Patriot Act.

 

[Simonemendez]

I have NO problem with my US government surveilling criminals. I ---want--- them to do that. But like you said, "gateway". It's a tedious slippery slope, this new technological age. And vigillance must constantly moniter the monitors. Who was it, Benjamin Franklin who said that those who are willing to forfeit their Liberty for security deserve neither?

 

[Simonemendez]

By the way, check out the cute thing I did to the beginning of my thread!

 

[AdamI]

As a (hopefully) much-hated debunker, I certainly agree with your sentiments.

Think about the very beginning when Arnold said that the objects he saw (which were not saucer shaped) moved like a saucer skipping across water. But the press misunderstood and called the object saucer-like. From then on, people mostly saw flying saucers!

Somehow the saucer enthusiasts dismiss this inconvenient fact. Or don't (or maybe can't) see the implications.

Lance

I nearly saw a UFO once over Boston, MA. I saw three lights in the sky close together and evenly spaced to form a perfect equilateral triangle. It really looked as if the stars behind were blotted out. I stared at it for quite a while trying to figure out what it was.

Had I not stayed long enough, I would have been convinced that I saw a large black triangle. But I stuck around and kept watching. Eventually, as the triangle got closer, I realized that it was three small jets flying in formation with their headlights on. They looked like identical jets. I couldn't tell what kind they were, but they weren't anything anomalous.

After having read about the UFO subject for a while, here's what I think: there is a small hard-core of cases (such as some of the ones Kimball talks about) that are very hard to explain away. But the vast, vast majority of events probably have mundane explanations. So I do think there are anomalous events, but they are very very rare. I would also guess based on the relative rarity of true high-quality cases that 99.9% of anecdotal reports are probably mistakes, illusions, made-up stories, etc.

There are some things that often get put in the UFO basket that I don't buy at all... I don't think animal mutilations have anything to do with UFOs (they're probably manmade), crop circles are "case closed" at this point given how many circle-makers have come forward, and I so far find the entire abduction phenomenon unconvincing.

The crashed UFO stories are in my grey basket, but I'm pretty skeptical of those.

Part of why I find this subject interesting is that I enjoy trying to find signal in something so noisy. If you can separate out the truth in this field, you can do it anywhere. Think of it as an exercise in data mining.

 

[Hoffmeister]

5. Maccabee It may be the elephant in the room but anyone who confirmed the authenticity of the Ed Walters photos is an idiot. Maccabee has proven himself unworthy of trust by this action and I find his reconstruction of McMinnville (which makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be accurate) to be subject to error. He found that the intersection of the two photos was 4 feet behind the wires that some skeptics think may have been the suspension point for the model. But I think the margin for error could easily account for this. I am not aware where Paul got his further data about the exact location of the disk but I would like to see the paper.

Sheaffer thinks he sees a bundle of wires that may have suspended a model. I am not convinced that what he is seeing is not just dirt on the negative. Others have cited the asymmetry of the "superstructure" of the disk as evidence that it is manmade. I am not convinced that this means anything either. In other words, I don't just accept every skeptical note on the case.


So do the above items prove that McMinnville is a hoax? No.


The striking thing is that this was presented as the one of the best cases (something I don't doubt). To me me this says a lot about the overall quality of the evidence. To you it may say something else entirely.

Lance

I havent been on this post for a bit as I've been busy.
I think the Ed Walters case has always really intrigued me... firstly because he comes across as one of the least believable people I have ever seen. However, whilst my actual research into the case goes no further than listening to a few podcasts with Bruce Macabee, and the odd bit of internet research, i still havent seen anyone really find any holes in the photo evidence.
I absolutely believe he was faking it, but to my knowledge (and i could well be wrong), no-one has worked out how.

 

[AdamI]

BTW, one skeptical argument I do not buy is this one:

"Given how many people today have digital cameras and camera phones, why don't we see more UFO photos?"

Do this experiment: take a cheap digital camera (which most people have) or a cell phone and try to photograph a bird. You will get an unidentifiable black blur. Now try to photograph a jet aircraft flying at night. You will get a black photo, maybe with a white streak. Add (often poor quality) JPEG compression into the mix and you don't really have something capable of photographing a distant moving object.... especially at night. Unless the darn thing lands in front of you, you are not going to get a useful picture of it with a cell phone or a cheap consumer digital camera.

To photograph a distant moving object (which most sightings are) you need a professional camera with excellent sensitivity and probably a tripod and a telephoto lens. I don't carry one of those around, do you? You also really need to have JPEG compression off to permit you to zoom without seeing artifacts. People rarely do that, unless they are doing serious photography or scientific work.

 

[tyder001]

I make no assumptions about what the various witnesses observed, other than it was something clearly not readily explainable. Beyond that, we can only guess.

One quick statement. Exraordinary claims DO NOT require extraordinar evidence. They require "Evidence!" If evidence is found that supports them it will by definition be "extraordinary." It's silly to say anything requires "extraordinary" evidence. What does that even mean? Does it mean that if I see an airplane it only requires a "normal evidence?" But if I see something I don't understand I can't speculate on it unless it did "three loop de loops and landed on the white house lawn and picked up larry King and gave him a ride to the ole pedophile randi's house?" Hmmmm? Just wonderin!