Top Five Ufology Cases

Originally posted by One Moment
Although I totally believe something happened with these guys, the fact that the one twin went out on the media circuit (and the other 3 refused) struck me as, strange.

I don't find that weird. I imagine if that happened to me I'd either shutup about it and try deal with it myself, or I could go the other way and want to talk about it non-stop, non-stop, because I just can't help myself.

Betty Hill was criticised for thinking every distant street light or aeroplane was a UFO. For some folk that was "proof" she had hoaxed their abduction. I see it as if she was some sort of rape victim who was so traumatized she thinks every man is going to do it again. Folk just have different ways of coping and a bad fright can change your behaviour in a variety of ways.

reply to post by seventytwo


There are already enough quality cases listed that the jury may already be convinced.

However I will add the en.wikipedia.org... to the list. One of the F4 pilots, Parviz Jafari, has publicly testified on encounter. There were civilian witnesses. Military witnesses on the ground. In the Air. Radar on the ground. Radar in the air.

It is pretty much a slam dunk if you take the case at face value. I'm not sure if the Iranian military has photos, radio logs, etc that could be brought into our imaginary court of law-- but that is certainly an excellent case that has no terrestrial explanation.

reply to post by kidflash2008


I would add this case to the Lonnie Zamora sighting. Maurice Masse from Valensole www.ufoevidence.org... have it as a two for the price of one as the sightings are so similar and from a similar time frame.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by FireMoon]

1) Military eye-encounters. Rendlesham etc etc.
2) Plane pilot encounters.
3) Astronauts.
4) Mass sightings.
5) Credible video material.

This is all there is to take to "court." Nobody cares about what Mr and Mrs X claim to have seen above their barn. And nobody cares about government cover-up theories, as there's no way to prove it.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jonas86]

reply to post by kidflash2008


I would have to agree with your choices of the first and second. I think that this list would have to start with the Hills.

S&F to the OP for this thread. It would be interesting to see an agreed upon list of the five most important cases. I for one am highly interested in what this list would contain.

Also, Thanks to each of you who have added to this post. The links and information provided will keep me busy reading for quite a while.

I believe this is the most intelligent thread/question posted since I first began lurking on ATS. This thread makes no assumptions one way r the other, it simply asks you to defend the UFO phenomenon. I wish I had thought of this.

I'm sorry, but I have to say this. To defend the legitimacy of Ufology in terms of law sounds ridiculous to me. That a fallible system that relies heavily on eyewitness accounts and second hand information taking up a subject as this is almost ridiculous in terms of providing definite proof. This is not how it works. Besides, everyone set on trial can in one way or another be discredited.

In my opinion the best and only way to defend UFOs and Ufology to achieve acknowledgement of the state and the world, is to prove it scientfifically. Period.

Did Einstein go to court or need a lawyer to prove his theory of general relativity? No. It was through scientific scrutiny and ingenuity.

The key word is scientific method.

Originally posted by Droogie

The idea seems funny yes, but why would eye-witness accounts not be considered some sort of evidence. Even murders get validated by eye-witnesses. For example in the Tehran incident, what should make it unquestionable is the UFO was spotted in different ares on a time span that describers where it was moving.

Of course, if I would show that en.wikipedia.org... to someone, it would not matter, because they'd say "you just found it on Wikipedia, anyone, just anyone could go and write sh*t there."

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jonas86]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jonas86]

reply to post by Droogie

Did Einstein go to court or need a lawyer to prove his theory of general relativity? No. It was through scientific scrutiny and ingenuity.

The key word is scientific method.

Ya ya...

There have been people who have used the "scientific method" to study the UFO phenomenon. Real scientists who were educated in the scientific method, and took their methodology to ufology. No they haven't turned out the kind of results that we want. Let's not kid ourselves about our own humanity though. People like to be respected and studying UFOs implies aliens and immediately makes you seem kooky by the eyes of many. Plus scientists have to go where the money is just like everyone else. There is no money in ufology.

reply to post by Jonas86

Of course, if I would show that en.wikipedia.org... to someone, it would not matter, because they'd say "you just found it on Wikipedia, anyone, just anyone could go and write sh*t there."

If they still don't believe then send them to ats!

We've got the official gov't document (outlined in this thread )

You should visit the gov't archive more often. I might be a bit bias though

reply to post by Scramjet76


Alternatively, we can make a compromise. Let's say a government scientist comes forward with unequivocal proof in the form of mathematical formulas and UFO material, making it possible to reproduce and measure the effects created. Then we're talking about both science as well as the judicial aspects of it. Don't know if such a case exists in reality though, I would believe it to be extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is attached a social stigma to the study of Ufology, but what better way to rid that stigma by having some indesputable firm proof to show to? I'm not saying it's easy at all, which I'm sure we all can agree on.

reply to post by Jonas86


Mass sightings, indeed. I was suggesting that this is not enough in providing definite proof of the phenomenon. It implies something was there, sure, but not what it really is. The proof in most these cases are ambigous at best, who wouldn't at least consider that measureable hands down firm evidence could put the nail in the coffin regarding the legitimacy of the UFOs existence.

Wikipedia is not a very valid source in all seriousness, if you use this as a source in a university paper you're in bad shape. The information found there can easily be found somewhere else from more reliable sources. At least you would want it confirmed from other sources if using it.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Droogie]

Originally posted by seventytwo
So imagine you're a Lawyer and you had to defend the legitimacy of Ufology....
what top five cases or incidents would you choose?

What top five cases produce the best evidence that could be argued in a court of law and prove most persuasive to a jury?

The Rendlesham Forest incident would be at the top of my list, hands down.

Other four would be:

Shag Harbor incident
Phoenix Lights
Roswell
Battle of Los Angeles

[edit on 13-7-2010 by -Blackout-]

Originally posted by Kandinsky

The Dechmont Woods incident it's definitely one of the most bizarre cases, I
I recall that his clothes were torn... wonder if they still have the physical evidence somewhere?

The Valentich Disappearance is a new one to me thank you very much for the information.

reply to post by One Moment


The Phoenix Lights is definite candidate for my top five another mass sighting incident with a lot of evidence supporting it.

reply to post by Scramjet76


The 1976 Tehran UFO Incident looks like a good one, I've found a discussion about it on ATS.

Originally posted by Droogie
I'm sorry, but I have to say this. To defend the legitimacy of Ufology in terms of law sounds ridiculous to me. The key word is scientific method.

defending the legitimacy of the subject is something you may do everyday, in the terms of law all I'm saying is: what is the most defensible with justifiable evidence.

reply to post by Droogie

Let's say a government scientist comes forward with unequivocal proof in the form of mathematical formulas and UFO material, making it possible to reproduce and measure the effects created.

How would this "gov't scientist" come forward exactly? First you need money to pay people to study things. I'm not sure what funds he would be using to conduct the study? You mean like a SETI scientist?

UFO material has been found but it remains controversial like everything else surrounding the phenomenon. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematical formula?" Can you explain? Thanks

reply to post by Scramjet76


Regarding the scientist coming forward, I was speaking in hypothetical scenario that could occur. I didn't want to waste any time concocting a story to go along with it, but maybe I should've.

Let's say a scientist that has worked on a back engineering project on an advanced craft from unknown origin, managed to smuggle out with him an exotic material as well as mathematical equations and know-how and was able to prove that the given technology exists. Where the funding would come from? I don't know - but I can imagine a lot of people would be interested in funding such a project. (Sounds like Bob Lazars story, but that didn't turn out like this as far as I know).

Anyway, this was just a hypothetical scenario, and a poor one at that I must admit. I hope I get my point across in spite of this, however unlikely this particular scenario sounds like.

When talking about the "mathematical formula", I was meaning to say equations, sorry for the mix-up.

reply to post by Seventytwo


For the sake of discussion, I'll go along with it. But I find most people I've ever talked about this subject with would require evidence in the type I've mentioned earlier in this thread. Their usual rebuttal are birds\hoaxes\chinese lanterns\what have you. Some does not require this and are willing to believe, but most people want to know, and my opinion is that this can't be achieved in the way you are speaking of.

But I see where you're coming from.

1. Roswell (numerous military witnesses from sergeants to generals, press evidence of flights to air materiel command, the army's press release, etc.)

2. Rendlesham (numerous military witnesses, recording, etc.)

3. Betty and Barney Hill (radar contact, the starmap, seen by a top Army psychiatrist, etc.)

4. Shag Harbor

5. Travis Walton

I'd have to disagree with Zimbabwe for the purpose of this thread, as children don't make great court witnesses (imaginative, and easily misled).

I'd also have to disagree with the Phoenix Lights case. (While the earlier sighting remains a mystery....the event that was video taped a couple hours later and shown to the world, was pretty much conclusively shown to be excess flares dropped by A-10s, i.e. after a test run designated as Operation Snowbird. Doesn't explain the earlier, eyewitness event (but no video), and was likely done to coverup the earlier sighting even, perhaps, but still plants a HUGE seed of doubt.)

reply to post by seventytwo


The best 1 I have seen is the episode on UFO hunters. They showed the Star child skull as well as discussed dulce d.u.m.b. The thing that was most interesting to me was the part where they produced pictures of a possible cow mut. that was incomplete and the farmers seen blk copters on site but they fleed in a hurry and left a fetus!!!!!!!!! The fetus was found inside a cow??? And it was found by a STATETROOPER WHO PRODUCED THE FETUS PICTURE... This fetus was believed to be transmutation of cow and unknown other, but had a large round head that was extremely hairy, again found inside cow belly..... THIS WAS THE SHOW THAT BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE D.U.M.B.S and when I researched D.U.M.B.S. I WAS INTRODUCED TO THE A.T.S. Show aired sometime around my ats join date within a week or so of me joining. If anyone wants to research the episode and find that pick they showed of the fetus...

[edit on 7/13/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

Originally posted by Gazrok3. Betty and Barney Hill (radar contact, the starmap, seen by a top Army psychiatrist, etc.)

Now this is an intruiging one. Wasn't one of their jackets covered in some yellow substance as well? I might be wrong, but I believe I watched that in a documentary once. If you happen to know; did this substance happen to be identified?