Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The UFO gauntlet: the case the Condon study, Blue Book, & Klass couldn't crack.

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Here's a challenge to people who still question the validity of UFOs as a concrete unexplainable phenomenon and more so the idea that these objects are guided by a non-human intelligence.

The Lakenheath / Bentwaters incident of 1956 has a lot of good data including numerous corroborating ground radar, ground visuals, air visuals, and air radar confirmations. So much so that if you read the Condon & Blue Book reports it becomes staggeringly hard to come up with any prosaic explanation.

Personally my first reaction was to say it was a foreign aircraft but the fact that the object stayed locked to the rear of a de Havilland Venom for more than ten minutes suggests it exceeded the best technology of the Royal Air Force and that's not factoring in radar measurements which clocked the object moving at ~4000 MPH. What's more so, the event occurred after the end of WWII. So it's fair to assume if there were any top-secret crafts in the air they would have been the property of the United States or Britain.

I also tried to make Hynek's original hypothesis work for me, but the idea that this was Perseid meteors would mean I'd have to ignore radar and visual maneuvers. As Hynek concluded, the hypothesis "must be ruled out." I also tried Phil Klass's explanation. He believed the Lakenheath RATCC radar was malfunctioning because of a faulty MTI unit. However this would imply that the Bentwaters and Sculthorpe radars were also malfunctioning which is a bit far fetched when you factor in the air radar, ground and air visuals.

So the most mundane explanation that I could come up with is that this was a non-Allied aircraft that could maneuver at ~4000 MPH, outperform a RAF Venom, glowed like a bright light (Yehudi lights?), could stop mid-air (NOTE: the first VTOL engine was manufactured in 1957), and when it started moving did so with no slow start or build-up to speeds varying from 400 to 600 MPH.

To say all those things almost sounds more ludicrous than to say it was other-worldly.

So ... what's your explanation? Is it man-made? If so which country manufactured it? If it was the USA why would the pilot dart around several allied bases and then play cat-and-mouse with a British RAF Venom? If it was another country how did it develop technology that vastly outpaced the rest of the first-world aerospace industry? And if such a country does exist, wouldn't it by now, some 60 years later, be technologically superior to every other nation on the face of the planet? Heck, not even jet-powered funny cars can go from a standing start to 400 in less than a second!

Or would you argue it was a weather / meteorological phenomenon? If it was weather how do you explain the object staying in-trail locked dead behind the RAF Venom?
edit on 13/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Great case well presented. S & F.

In some cases the most logical explanation is the least conventional explanation.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Great case well presented. S & F.

In some cases the most logical explanation is the least conventional explanation.


I completely agree with your last statement. It also gives me the opportunity to point out one of my pet peeves.

In its popular usage, Occam's razor is often inappropriately treated as nearly a law of physics. It's a guide, but that's all. One common misapplication is to ignore evidence since Occam's razor implies that the evidence must be wrong.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
That is a very compelling case.

I would also like to add that none of the military sponsored studies have been able to explain the waves of UFO's over DC in July 1952. These UFOs were witnessed by thousands, were photographed and filmed, and were definately NOT our own aircraft.

Some of these were clocked by radar at over 7000 mph! The military tried to explain these phenomena as temperature inversions, meteors, stars, etc. Never mind that the films and photos clearly show that these objects were not meteors, stars, or the planet Venus.

Here's a YouTube link for one film shot during the DC UFO flap.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BCzQH0Lkco

Maybe the most interesting facet of the DC UFO flap was that the director of "Project Blue Book" was in DC at the time. He couldn't get a staff car to take him to the site where the UFOs were being seen and he refused to hire a cab to do it. The UFOs were about 10 minutes away from the Pentagon and the cab fare would have been about 5 bucks back then.

He later flew back to Wright Patterson AFB, WHILE THE UFO FLAP WAS GOING ON! Now, how serious an investigation was "Project Blue Book"?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
One common misapplication is to ignore evidence since Occam's razor implies that the evidence must be wrong.


What gave you that idea?

Paraphrased in modern English Occam's Razor states: All other things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. How do you construe that to mean "the evidence must be wrong"?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Hahahahahaha. That is the MOST RIDICULOUS application of Occam's Razor EVER.

If the facts don't fit your easy story, ignore them. That's AWESOME. Then you want to pretend that's LOGIC.

Wonderful. Really. Just astoundingly awesome. I stand in awe.



Here's what you actually mean, and it isn't Occam's Razor.

An easy simple lie is much better than the complicated truth.

[edit on 2009/3/25 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wasco

Originally posted by Xtraeme
One common misapplication is to ignore evidence since Occam's razor implies that the evidence must be wrong.
What gave you that idea?

Paraphrased in modern English Occam's Razor states: All other things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. How do you construe that to mean "the evidence must be wrong"?


I think you misinterpreted the last sentence to be a factual assertion rather than an example of the logic that I was criticizing. I was emulating the kind-of thought process that abuses Occam's razor to exemplify my point.

Let me be a bit less flippant this time around
,

"In its popular usage, Occam's razor is often inappropriately treated as nearly a law of physics. It's a guide, but that's all. One common misapplication is to ignore evidence, because people twist the razor to mean, 'Regardless whether all things are equal the simplest explanation IS correct.'"

I was not suggesting that the razor implies that the evidence supporting the alternate option is then somehow in question.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Hahahahahaha. That is the MOST RIDICULOUS application of Occam's Razor EVER.

If the facts don't fit your easy story, ignore them. That's AWESOME. Then you want to pretend that's LOGIC.


Sadly that about sums it up.
I'm glad I'm not the only one utterly floored by this type of mental midgetry.


An easy simple lie is much better than the complicated truth.


That's a keeper! Next time I get in to a debate and someone promulgates this sort of sloppy reasoning, I intend to throw that quote at them.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Hi Xtraeme,

Good thread, please take my question in the vein of the intent it was asked in.

It is impossible to categorically prove an intelligently controlled machine was responsible for the effects caused in this case, or any other, to the degree required by a large chunk of the general public, let alone the hardened skeptic.

That being the case you could start 50 of these threads, each identifying cases where that would be the most rational explanation, but in order for Ufology to move to another state, do you see any specific strategic targets or is it a case of education until critical mass causes either official recognition or at least serious scientific research ?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Good thread, please take my question in the vein of the intent it was asked in.

It is impossible to categorically prove an intelligently controlled machine was responsible for the effects caused in this case, or any other, to the degree required by a large chunk of the general public, let alone the hardened skeptic.


I'm not entirely sure this is true. I pitched this particular case to a friend that's a satellite systems engineer at Boeing. After going over all the details he concluded the same thing that I did, "it followed in-trail behind a RAF Venom for over ten minutes as it performed evasive maneuvers (so there was some form of intelligence guiding the object) and its propulsion system / maneuverability was clearly in excess of anything available at the time."

When you say 'hardened skeptic' what you really mean are people who disbelieve on faith rather than based on any sort of cogent argument (AKA DE-UFOP). There's no convincing these people; just the same as there's no convincing a creationist that life evolved from nothing. The only reason the public avoids this subject is due to the stigmatization of `UFO` and its close association with the now heavily ridiculed ETH (AKA AV-UFOP). One way to regain some sort of objectivity, and reclaim the word from those who hijacked it, is to clearly show that there are a number of other explanations that are all equally plausible.

For instance the unmanned drone hypothesis (scrape to 5:40, which would account for Fermi's paradox) or the more respectable sounding, "quantum manifestation hypothesis."


That being the case you could start 50 of these threads, each identifying cases where that would be the most rational explanation, but in order for Ufology to move to another state, do you see any specific strategic targets or is it a case of education until critical mass causes either official recognition or at least serious scientific research ?


Excellent question!

I think education is a huge part of this. That's why I bothered to come to ATS in the first place. I wanted to find something that distilled the best-of-the-best evidence and if I couldn't find such a thing create it myself so I could pass it on to politicians, friends, coworkers, and family members to give them reason to reconsider their position. I finally achieved that goal so my time here may be nearing an end.

As for a specific target, yes, I do think there is something else that can be done. I'm currently creating a distributed mobile UFO detection, analysis, identification, and reporting platform for the iPhone. I have three goals:

  1. Get as many people as possible to experience UFOs first-hand. My research suggests people are overwhelmingly convinced of the phenomenon when they have a personal encounter. This software helps provide that experience by encouraging people in the vicinity of reported a UFO to simply look out their windows to bear witness to a sighting.
  2. Give professional reporters access to up-to-the-second reports of UFOs. One of the big goals of this project is to get an organization like CNN to send a camera crew to record one of these objects live, up-close and personal.
  3. More detailed reports. By getting more people to sightings we get additional viewing angles, more corroborating independent first-hand reports, and if a professional camera crew is in the area validation from a trusted news source.

If you're interested in other details you can find out more about this particular project here.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
According to Thayer, a report by the night-watch supervisor in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center (RATCC) at Lakenheath submitted to the Condon Committee years after the events of the night of August 13-14, 1956, provided the most coherent account. Here is the report of the night-watch supervisor as submitted to the Condon Committee, reprinted by Hynek, online on the Razing wiki. The original source was "The Hynek UFO Report." I'll dig around through the Blue Book archive to try to find microfilm copies.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Since I know people have a propensity to not click links. I've decided to copy the night-watch supervisors letter, as it was submitted to the Condon Committee, here on to ATS.


In 1956, sometime between January and September (I cant remember the exact date or month), I was on duty as Watch Supervisor at Lakenheath RAF Station, England, (a USAF base), in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center. It was the 5:00 P.M. to midnight shift. I had either four or five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisors Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually, Im not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was Sculthorpe GCA Unit calling and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes traveling at 4,000 MPH. They said they had watched a target on their scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east of Sculthorpe to a point 40 miles west of Sculthorpe. The target passed directly over Sculthorpe, England, RAF Station (also a USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it go by and just appeared to be a blurry light. A C47 flying over the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range -- from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of Lakenheath. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone as I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using ______ on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or not [sic] traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However, one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at Lakenheath to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target was on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 MPH in a north/northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north/northwest of Lakenheath. There was no slow start or build-up to this speed -- it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped.


[edit on 6-7-2009 by asala]

Mod edit: Shortened quote, added link to online transcript (see below)

[edit on 7/7/09/07 by junglejake]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
(continued)

Source: Hynek, Josef (1997). The Hynek UFO Report. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0760704295. pg. 120-125

Online transcript

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

[edit on 7/7/09/07 by junglejake]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wasco

Originally posted by Xtraeme
One common misapplication is to ignore evidence since Occam's razor implies that the evidence must be wrong.


What gave you that idea?

Paraphrased in modern English Occam's Razor states: All other things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. How do you construe that to mean "the evidence must be wrong"?


Heres an interesting comment about UFO/OVNI debunkers abusing Occam's razor:


The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't.
What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions.
If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations.
What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse
of the proper approach.

The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the
observations.
One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and
then declare that it was really Venus."

But that's okay for the skeptics to do because it's an "extraordinary claim" being made that deserves to be explained away in a Machiavellian fashion as rapidly as possible with the urgent zeal of a religious missionary.
Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the
preferred hypothesis -- is that science? Or is that dogma? The answer, of course, is dogma.
This practice is extremely poor science, and the approach undermines the very spirit of scientific inquiry.
It is simply unacceptable to alter the observations that refuse to conform with the predetermined, favored explanation.

www.nicap.org...


Also this quotes makes some excellent points about speculative assumption and endemic cynicism:


"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."
Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Excellent commentary, Karl!

Dr. Bernard Haisch is definitely one of the more rational people looking into the subject.

You also quoted one of my more favorite sayings, "I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic." It's a good reminder. Whenever I veer too far afield playing devils advocate that quote reminds me to swing back in the opposite direction to make sure my advocacy of the position isn't merely causing me to force evidence to the contrary. The same applies when I start to lean too strongly in favor of a particular view-point.

I argued with my girlfriend about this and she had a rather good retort, "You're telling me I should throw out my internal BS meter?" I countered, "No it doesn't mean throw out the internal BS meter. Rather it suggests we should look at both sides of any idea & for subjects we don't have time to research, prepare to admit unsubstantiated bias." She agreed.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Xtraeme-great post-the Lakengeath case is a truly interesting one and I agree with many of your points - well all of them realy.

Have no idea what the object could have been but this is an interesting bit of graffitti made by air traffic controllers in 1956:


Photograph of UFO graffiti on a control panel in RAF Bentwaters tower, 1956 - courtesy Hugh Sanders:


Full Image:
www.drdavidclarke.co.uk...
Cheers.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
i know this is off topic,
but to the OP....

your profile graphic is awesome. I wonder who discovered that breakthrough?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Excellent commentary, Karl!

Dr. Bernard Haisch is definitely one of the more rational people looking into the subject.

You also quoted one of my more favorite sayings, "I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic."


Xtraeme,thanks for the reply-Dr. Bernard Haisch was certainly a very wise chap.

Unfortunately these days, it seems his advice has not been taken on board by the mainstream scientific community and 'objectivity' is sorely lacking when it comes to the investigation of the UFO/OVNI subject and possible speculation about actual,genuine unknowns.

Don't want to just keep posting quotes but there are some very pertinent ones below regarding Blue book and US Government 'investigations' :


"Project Blue Book was ballyhooed by the Air Force as a full-fledged top-priority operation. It was no such thing. The staff, in a sense, was a joke. In terms of scientific training and numbers, it was highly inadequate to the task. And the methods used were positively archaic. And that is the crack operation that the general public believes looked adequately into the UFO phenomenon".

And:

"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".

Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).


Other appropriate ones:


"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987



"Every time I get skeptical, I think of the other reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they are looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.
We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets... The pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself, knew what they were talking about. Maybe the Earth is being visited by interplanetary space ships.
Captain Edward J. Ruppelt-Chief of Project Blue Book



"We had a number of reports from reputable individuals (well-educated serious-minded folks, scientists and fliers) who surely saw something".
As Air Force Chief of Staff, in his 1965 autobiography, Mission With LeMay, stated that although the bulk of UFO reports could be explained as conventional or natural phenomena, some could not.
Many of the mysteries might be explained away as weather balloons, stars, reflected lights, all sorts of odds and ends. I don't mean to say that, in the unclosed and unexplained or unexplainable instances, those were actually flying objects.All I can say is that no natural phenomena could be found to account for them... Repeat again: There were some cases we could not explain. Never could.

General Curtis LeMay
Statement from 1965 autobiography Mission With LeMay, with MacKinlay Kantor, New York: Doubleday, 1965.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are also documents which show that Dr Condon was in cahoots with the CIA and ordered never to mention their involvement in the report:
www.ufologie.net...

It could very well be the case that the Condon Report was just a cyncial debunking exercise - their only objective being to provide
'non-ufological explanations' to events,regardless of any facts or evidence which might get in the way.
This adds to the intrigue of the Lakenheath Incident as even Dr Condon and his team couldn't superimpose their premeditated explanations onto the case and labelled it an actual unknown:


Condon Conclusion:

"In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting".

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Great OP as ever, Extraeme


The Lakenheath/ Bentwaters incident is one of the best supported early cases out there. Multiple witnesses, documents, radar traces corroborated by two other radar stations and official acknowledgment. Although the thread is focused on the single UFO tracking the plane, it all began with multiple UFO sightings by witnesses and radar traces.

We can't attribute the events to ET intelligence, but we have to accept that there were no reasonable explanations to account for the incident. Perseids, faulty radars and meteorites have been discounted. It was a true UFO incident as the objects remain 'unidentified.'

In 1969, a conference offered analyses of UFO incidents and their official investigations. The investigations were described as inadequate and imply that opportunities were missed. Some of the reports are alleged to contain a bias that deflects attention from the mystery of the events and encourages the idea that they weren't extraordinary. Possible reasons for doing so are suggested in this UFO Critique (Investigation into Condon Committee) PDF I like some her ideas because they offer rational reasons of National Security instead of sinister cover-ups.

The incident is covered at the 1969 Conference in great detail SCIENCE IN DEFAULT:
22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS
(there's pdf on my hard drive somewhere...AWOL).

Planetary Ephemeris Data for the Lakenheath Area
13-14 August 1956


USAF Lakenheath Airbase details



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This'll be two replies in one:


Originally posted by bananasam
your profile graphic is awesome. I wonder who discovered that breakthrough?


Like all good breakthroughs it happened on accident to a nameless scientist unremembered by the annals of history.


 


Originally posted by Kandinsky
Great OP as ever, Extraeme


Appreciate that, thanks Kandinsky



The Lakenheath/ Bentwaters incident is one of the best supported early cases out there. Multiple witnesses, documents, radar traces corroborated by two other radar stations and official acknowledgment. Although the thread is focused on the single UFO tracking the plane, it all began with multiple UFO sightings by witnesses and radar traces.


The one thing that's always stuck out like a sore thumb in my mind were these quotes:


We were using ______ on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or not [sic] traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However, one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all.



The target made several changes in location, always in a straight line, always at about 600 MPH and always from a standing or stationary point to his next stop at constant speed -- no build-up in speed, no set pattern at any time.



The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the interceptor) I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told me he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried everything -- he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets.


In effect, the pathology of the observation was constantly changing. As a programmer / engineer I've noticed the one thing that usually holds true is that bugs manifest themselves in a patterned way. Whereas in this case we have several different subsystems all seemingly failing at once and not even failing reliably in the same manner. What's more so is the recorded object "flew off" and by all accounts the radar seemed to function normally following that.

To me that's a good indicator that this wasn't a hardware problem. This usually gets glossed over in favor of, "how can air radar fail in the same corroborating manner as ground radar?"


We can't attribute the events to ET intelligence, but we have to accept that there were no reasonable explanations to account for the incident. Perseids, faulty radars and meteorites have been discounted. It was a true UFO incident as the objects remain 'unidentified.'


I wouldn't claim ET intelligence, but I think it's highly indicative of some form of intelligence. I've discussed this with several people who vehemently oppose this statement.


in⋅tel⋅li⋅gence
–noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.


I find it hard not applying the most basic definition "capacity for learning, ... facts."

To completely mimic the Venom's movements, in trail, epitomizes "interchange of information." There is no known natural phenomenon capable of these types of maneuvers.

I'll be the first to admit this doesn't stipulate biological understanding or consciousness, but at a minimum it does exhibit intelligence on the order of what's possible with robotics and computer learning techniques.


In 1969, a conference offered analyses of UFO incidents and their official investigations. The investigations were described as inadequate and imply that opportunities were missed. Some of the reports are alleged to contain a bias that deflects attention from the mystery of the events and encourages the idea that they weren't extraordinary. Possible reasons for doing so are suggested in this UFO Critique (Investigation into Condon Committee) PDF I like some her ideas because they offer rational reasons of National Security instead of sinister cover-ups.

The incident is covered at the 1969 Conference in great detail SCIENCE IN DEFAULT:
22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS
(there's pdf on my hard drive somewhere...AWOL).

Planetary Ephemeris Data for the Lakenheath Area
13-14 August 1956


USAF Lakenheath Airbase details


Thanks for all extra material.
Dr. David Clarke is always worth reading. I have the symposium notes on my server, but alas it's currently undergoing a bit of surgery. When I get the new cpu fan / heatsink I'll make it available online if you can't find your copy.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by Xtraeme]





new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join