You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 27
214
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Either way it should be studied in a serious manner by competent professionals.

in the early 1980s a group of scientists tried to address anomalous radar returns which were claimed to be ufos. They had a plane on standby and every time they got a blip on the radar they scrambled the plane. In each instance when they reached the location they found weather phenomenon like turbulence which was causing the blips.


That's interesting, yeti. Never heard of that one. Can you provide a link or some more specific information on that study so we can look into it? Thanks.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
... e.g in the early 1980s a group of scientists tried to address anomalous radar returns which were claimed to be ufos. They had a plane on standby and every time they got a blip on the radar they scrambled the plane. In each instance when they reached the location they found weather phenomenon like turbulence which was causing the blips.


I'd like to read more about this. Do you have a link, or the name of the scientists, or any info at all about it so that I could google it? Thanks.

Also, from what I've red, 'Anomalous Propagation' seems to be pretty well understood. What do you make of the UFO cases where it has been reasonably excluded as a possibility? (It's hard to say "those radar echoes must be due to weather phenomena", after all, when competent experts have already concluded they're not due to weather phenomena.... ) You are aware of such cases, I assume? They exist in that core of primary material which anyone intelligently discussing this topic should have read by now.

I'm always looking to supplement my knowledge, though, so again, it would be great to get more info about that early 80's study you mention.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


can't find that exact one the problem with ufology & the internet is the pro ufo sites totally ignore this sort of info. Doesn't fit their agenda. www.CSICOP.org and "the klass files" are good for a skeptical view on the subject you might find it there.

There is another documentary from 1982 which features a regular from these forums (Jim Oberg) he should get a medal he's been on the case that long. It's called "case of the ufos" and has some radar analysis you might find interesting.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



What do you make of the UFO cases where it has been reasonably excluded as a possibility? (It's hard to say "those radar echoes must be due to weather phenomena", after all, when competent experts have already concluded they're not due to weather phenomena.... ) You are aware of such cases, I assume?


the only cases i am aware of where it was initially excluded are from the 1950s & 1960s. There's some in project blue book but there is no radar data supplied and we've learnt a lot about radar in the last 50 years. It would be good if we had the data and experts today could look at it - be interesting to see if they reach the same conclusion. Unfortunately this is not possible.
edit on 23-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Either way it should be studied in a serious manner by competent professionals.


it has been. many experiments & investigations have been done. Its just they didn't find anything

not one experiment in trying to find "ufos" has yielded any results apart from natural phenomenon. That's the main reason nobody is interested these days.


Since you're unable to point us toward that one particular study you cited, or to recall any relevant information that would help us find it (I guess we'll just have to take your word for it), maybe you can steer us in the direction of a few of these other "many experiments and investigations" you refer to. I'd really be interested to take a look.

I tried to Google around for that study you say was conducted, and I did come across this interesting paper on the topic of anomalous radar propagation by Bruce Maccabee.


Abstract — Radar and radar-visual sightings were among the various types of UFO sightings discussed by the review panel sponsored by the Society for Scientific Exploration in the Fall of 1997. Although several well-described cases involving radar were presented to the panel, including cases in which apparently structured objects were seen coincident with radar detection, the opinion of the panel was that, whereas a few of the cases might represent “rare but significant phenomena,” “rare cases of radar ducting,” or “secret military activities,” none of the cases represented “unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.” One of the panel members (Eshleman) proposed a general explanation for the radar cases in terms of atmospheric effects including refraction and ducting. There is no indication in the complete report that the panel members offered specific explanations for any report, or that any panel member was able to prove that atmospheric effects of any sort could account for the radar and radar-visual sightings. This paper, a response to the panel opinion, demonstrates that careful consideration of atmospheric effects is not sufficient to explain at least some of the radar, radar-visual, and photographic sightings that have been reported over the years.
edit on 23-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


you can tell your new to the ufo game - bruce macabee oh dear. have you seen his "battle of la" analysis? shocking

hessdalen lights were claimed to be "ufos" until some scientists showed up and said "no spaceships here sorry"

be nice if ufologists did some experiments but they seem more interested in selling books & dvds...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
the only cases i am aware of where it was initially excluded are from the 1950s & 1960s. There's some in project blue book but there is no radar data supplied and we've learnt a lot about radar in the last 50 years. It would be good if we had the data and experts today could look at it - be interesting to see if they reach the same conclusion. Unfortunately this is not possible.


You're not aware of any UFO cases since the 60's where anomalous propagation (AP) has been reasonably excluded as a possibility? That's very surprising, given the number of those types of cases, and the level of publicity some have obtained.

(Or maybe you just disagree that AP can be properly excluded in certain circumstances?)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


if your talking about things like Tehran '76 or JAL Alaska '86 i don't think "angel" radar returns have been ruled out no.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101

if your talking about things like Tehran '76 or JAL Alaska '86 i don't think "angel" radar returns have been ruled out no.


I have to seriously question your having actually studied the Tehran case.

The Tehran 1976 case involves multiple ground-air visuals, multiple air-to-air visuals and radar confirmation. Regarding this case, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency's own report indicates that the radar confirmations were valid.

Do you know something the Defense Intelligence Agency doesn't know regarding the radar data?

Here is a brief synopsis of the Tehran incident, for anyone wishing to draw their own conclusions:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 23-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


you can tell your new to the ufo game - bruce macabee oh dear. have you seen his "battle of la" analysis? shocking

hessdalen lights were claimed to be "ufos" until some scientists showed up and said "no spaceships here sorry"

be nice if ufologists did some experiments but they seem more interested in selling books & dvds...


Yep, I'm still learning. Haven't read much of Bruce Maccabee's stuff. He did actually get one of his "UFO" analyses published in Applied Optics if I'm not mistaken. Who exactly was it that claimed the Hessdalen phenomena were spaceships? They're certainly anomalous, but I don't recall hearing anyone of any reputation asserting anything like that.

So that's a no, then? You're not going to hook us up with links to some of these "several committees" you refer to?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


you can tell your new to the ufo game - bruce macabee oh dear. have you seen his "battle of la" analysis? shocking...


Is Maccabee having once been wrong justification for dismissing his entire body of work? Because above you cite Phil Klass's files as "good for a skeptical view on the [UFO] subject." Yet Klass was wildly wrong, several times, when speaking about the UFO topic, and I wonder why you're not applying this same standard of summary dismissal to HIS work?

(And please note, I'm only assuming Maccabee actually was wrong; I've not read the piece you reference, so don't actually know.)

But the point is, it's very simple to totally dismiss Phil Klass's entire work-product if those are the standards you wish to apply.

Especially if there's any truth to the internal FBI documents on Klass. (Apparently obtained through FOIA requests, and located in several places online, such as here.) The documents seem to indicate that the FBI took a very harsh and negative view of Klass and seriously questioned his credibility and objectivity.

From those apparent mid-1970's FBI documents regarding Phil Klass:

--"In view of Klass's intemperate criticism and often irrational statements he made to support them, it was recommended that the Bureau be most circumspect in any future contacts with him."

--"A book review concerning one of [Klass's] published works entitled "UFOs -- Identified," published by Random House, credits him with a scientific approach to explaining the UFO phenomena, but specifically notes that he is in disagreement with Dr. Hynek and others prominent in the field.... Klass's attempts to discredit Hynek are totally without foundation. Hynek could scarcely have have any better scientific credentials. All of his writings and public statements that were examined prior to publication of his article in the Bulletin ['The UFO Mystery', in the "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" of February, 1975] disclose a meticulously objective and scientific view of the UFO phenomenon."

--"NOTE: Klass is well known to us. Shortly after publication of Dr. Hynek's article, he telephoned the Bulletin's editor and in scornful terms similar to his letter derided our publication of Hynek's article. He suggested the FBI had been drawn into a hoax perpetrated by a fraud (Dr. Hynek). Klass is deficient on all points of his argument, particularly concerning the credentials of Dr. Hynek which could scarcely be better. Hynek has been associated professorially with some of the finest universities in this country and is recognized in the most prestigious scientific circles. On the other hand, Klass has no such sterling reputation...."


(Why anyone would consider Klass a more reliable source of UFO truth than Dr. Hynek, I have no idea....)

More to the point, does the above invalidate everything Klass ever said regarding UFOs? Of course not. And this shows why it's better to evaluate a specific piece of work (like Maccabee's on UFOs/radar) based upon its own merits, rather than simply dismiss it just because the author can be shown to have been wrong or biased or whatever in some other context.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Robertson panel , the committee which included carl sagan to review project blue book & condon commitee. Thats just USA.

Flying saucer reports became a quaint part of 1950s & 1960s history. The brits wound up their ufo operation basically saying nothing substantial found after 50 years.

Why do you think ufologists sell books & dvds and dont do any ufo experiments? This wasn't always the case a couple of ufologists did run some experiments in the 1970s. Guess what they found?

Now to the modern era the last 20 years. The only people i know who are out there specifically looking for alien spaceships are CSETI. But photos of moths is about as much as they've produced.
edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Robertson panel , the committee which included carl sagan to review project blue book & condon commitee. Thats just USA.

edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


The Robertson Panel and reviews of the Condon Report? Yeah, your right. I guess there's nothing to this subject.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

The Robertson Panel and reviews of the Condon Report? Yeah, your right. I guess there's nothing to this subject.




Won't even mention the Condon report but this document indicates the 'conclusions' of the Robertson panel were already arrived at one year before.. hardly an 'objective' study then.




This memo to the Director of CIA indicates that what would be the recommendation of the Robertson Panel was already determined a year before: flying saucers cause to threats to the national security: one psychological threat (risks of mass panic may be exploited by the "enemy"), and the other an air security threat (neglect of UFO alerts may cause neglect of "enemy" air attacks.)

It also shows that CIA estimated current efforts of UFO research insufficient as far as national security is concerned and that the problem must be escalated to higher levels.




Link


Cheers.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


so why do you think ufologists dont do any experiments these days?
edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
So you think that murder cases are closed by a handful of witnesses saying yes, I saw something. I'm sorry but this is no more proof than the usual type of thing. Of course, pieces of evidence going missing is mysterious but it's not proof. Nor are pictures of upside-down colanders proof of UFO's. I'm sorry, but unless you have a close-up of a craft that has in no way been photoshopped, unless President Obama comes out and announces that he saw a giant UFO over the White House, or unless one lands at Wembley stadium on Friday during the opening ceremony, I am still waiting for definitive proof. I believe we've been visited but that is just my faith in the possibility, I've yet to see real proof of the earth having been visited.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaemonD14
unless President Obama comes out and announces that he saw a giant UFO over the White House


I highly recommend you check out this post here and those that follow it.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


so why do you think ufologists dont do any experiments these days?
edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


Well I'm certainly no scientist, but seems to me that conducting an experiment involves control of variables. UFO sightings are typically unpredictable occurrences that are geographically and temporally isolated. We don't really have any UFOs to study because they don't hang around to be studied, so people have had to settle for studying the reports, photographs and any physical traces alleged to have been associated with a reported UFO. It's more akin to crime scene investigation or the study of history than it is to physics or chemistry.

Another reason might be that nobody wants to fund UFO studies because it is assumed that there is nothing to it. Scientists and others in academia, from what I understand, prefer to conduct themselves in ways they feel have a good chance of enhancing their career, not ruining it.

Just my thoughts. By the way, how do you define "ufologist", and can you give me a list of five or six people who you would put under that classification?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


how do you expect to get anywhere if nobody even tries to look for them?

its the people peddling the ET myths that have set the bar. They're the ones who claim they are nuts & bolts craft with et occupants that go around abducting people. They need to get some decent evidence to back up their claims and that hasn't happened in 70 years.

edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Robertson panel , the committee which included carl sagan to review project blue book & condon commitee. Thats just USA.


Wow...OK, Klass and O'berg I can forgive, somewhat. But the ignorance of this is just....well....ignorant. Look past the preconceived Condon Report summary and actually read the report...





new topics

top topics



 
214
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join