These are 5 of my favorite cases though I'm not sure they are the "best", but you asked for favorites and not "best". The first three have no
photographic evidence, which I think is valuable and important. Without any photos, I have no idea what happened or what they saw which makes the
cases very mysterious and intriguing. Why do some of the "best" cases have no photos or videos? It's a paradox, or maybe not. Without the
photographic evidence in the Oldfield case, we never would have figured out what they saw. The 4th case has a photo, not a very good one but good
enough to rule out Venus or some of the other favorite force-fit explanations some people like to come up with. And the multiple highly credible
police officer testimonies make it interesting. The 5th case has a video, and I posted a screenshot of the video. It's one of the clearest views of a
UFO I've ever seen. But it's also one of my favorites because it was eventually explained and now most people don't seem to think it was really a
UFO after all. But it sure looks like one.
• The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973
• The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case
• America West Airlines Flight 564 UFO Case
• Illinois 2000 - one of the best multiple police sightings
This site has more about the Illinois UFO including an enhancement of the photograph:
• The Oldfield UFO Film - 1966
This is a screenshot from the Oldfield UFO case video:
And a couple of other favorite UFO photos that have been identified. This one's not really a UFO but a UAP, but I think most people don't use the
term UAP so it probably would be called a UFO. It's also my best guess for something similar to what they might have seen at the O'hare airport UAP
I can see why this UFO freaks some people out, some people hate this guy:
You can probably guess what this is. (Hint: 24)
And my favorite flying saucers (the manmade type):
Some of the outermost UFOs haven't all been identified, but some have, I'd guess the ones that haven't probably account for 10-30% of UFO
And my favorite photo of "Aliens", or what Dorothy Izatt calls aliens. I try to keep this in mind when people tell me they've seen aliens.
Aliens, eh? OK Dorothy, if you say so, and don't worry about the men you see coming in the white coats, they're coming to take you to a happy place.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Flying underground? How's that work?
We've all seen what happens when an airplane tries to fly underground....we call it a crash. So how does it work? Apparently not very well. Even the
eager believers at the pro-UFO organization SOBEPs finally agreed it was impossible and almost all the radar data everyone got so excited about, was
Late in 2009 I got a collection of all the "UFO Files" TV episodes made and early in 2010 I watched them all, and that was one of the tidbits I
gleaned from watching those shows. It was the predecessor to "UFO Hunters" and took a much more balanced view of all the believers and skeptics view
of the cases, so they actually revealed the data problems whereas biased documentaries would like to ignore the bad radar data. They also provided
both skeptics and believers views of the famous Belgian triangle photo. You can read more about it and see the documentary link I posted here:
UFO files said that even SOBEPS admits almost all the radar data is bad because it shows the UFOs actually flying below ground level, which is
impossible. But they still wanted to hang on to #9 even though 1-8 were proven bad: