best evidence

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: best evidence

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:51 am

Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:To your list, I would also add the 1986 JAL Flight 1628 Over Alaska.

I wouldn’t...

On second thought, I agree if we're making a list per Nemo's suggestion.

[pardon my involuntary urge to debunk] :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: best evidence

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:25 am

Crackajack wrote:I tend to think the plane and pilot are at the bottom of the sea also.

Possibly, but I’ll wait to see where this thread is going before opening my big mouth. :)

Crackajack wrote:PS: Can I enable bbcode or is that an admin function?

Fixed… ghost of mods past apparently. For some reason it was turned off for members of the users group in this forum. Sorry about that, I cleaned up the all the posts. Let me know if you have any other problems.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: best evidence

Postby Crackajack » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:10 am

Access Denied wrote:Possibly, but I’ll wait to see where this thread is going before opening my big mouth. :)


Haha. Go for it AD. My "tend to think" type statements obviously mean I have no idea and defer to a rational explanation. :?

Access Denied wrote:Fixed… ghost of mods past apparently. For some reason it was turned off for members of the users group in this forum. Sorry about that, I cleaned up the all the posts. Let me know if you have any other problems.


Much appreciated.
Crackajack
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:44 am

Re: best evidence

Postby ryguy » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:06 pm

Access Denied wrote:
Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:To your list, I would also add the 1986 JAL Flight 1628 Over Alaska.

I wouldn’t...

On second thought, I agree if we're making a list per Nemo's suggestion.

[pardon my involuntary urge to debunk] :)


LOL...excellent. Don't ever give up that involuntary urge, mind you - it's that urge that separates the wind-tunnel brains from the true critical thinkers. :)

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: best evidence

Postby Nemo » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:11 pm

I like the J.A.L. item. It was on radar, etc, and there's not just anything flying around in that area. Did the passengers see it too?

Pilot sightings and military pilot sightings have weight with me since there is apparently a lot of pressure to not report anything like this. In the military, things go on your record and stay there. If things just don't "look right" for any reason you don't get promoted and that's the end of your career. Most probably report these things after they retire for this reason.

What do you guys think about the case from the 1950's of the Priest who said that he witnessed a clearly metallic with "people" on it. It was supposed to have also been witnessed for quite awhile by numerous school children who were with him. This was in the South Pacific. I recently read something online about this and he clearly stated that he witnessed it for at least 30 minutes, probably longer and that it moved closer to them at one point and then further away.

What do you think about the case of the 7 or so campers who say they were "abducted"? That is based on hypnotic regression but some of their memories were without this and there are 7 witnesses.
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: best evidence

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:21 pm

Crackajack wrote:Haha. Go for it AD. My "tend to think" type statements obviously mean I have no idea and defer to a rational explanation. :?

OK cool, sometimes I feel like I'm just ruining all the fun for everybody... that's why I'm no longer allowed to speak while my wife is watching those Ghost Hunter shows. :)

Not sure If you've seen this before but it raised a lot of questions for me…

Final report by New Zealand civil aviation investigators on the disappearance of Frederick Valentich and his aircraft
http://www.ufoera.com/articles/final-re ... 10637.html

In Issue #30 of the 'Fortean Times', British Ufologist Nigel Watson reviewed the disappearance of Australian pilot Frederick Valentich on the night of October 21, 1978, while flying over Bass Strait.

Watson raised a number of points that are worth repeating and investigating:

A. Frederick filed only a one-way flight plan to King Island although he had indicated his intention to return the same evening.

B. He made no arrangements for the landing lights at King Island to be turned on.

C. Police found no one who had arranged to sell crayfish to Frederick - the stated intention for his flight.

D. The aircraft's long range fuel tank was filled to its 303 litre capacity. [~10 times more than he needed to get where he was allegedly going –AD]

E. Cape Otway lighthouse keepers and Bass Strait fishermen did not report seeing any light aircraft in the vicinity.

F. Despite ideal conditions, at no time was the aircraft [Valentich's] plotted on radar.

G. Melbourne Police received reports of a light aircraft making a mysterious landing not far from Cape Otway at the same time as Valentich's disappearance.

H. Although Bass Strait - and later Cape Otway and King Island – were searched for signs of wreckage, nothing was found.

I. He had $300 cash on his person. (A lot of money in '78)

J. He arranged to meet his girlfriend, Ms Rushton on the same evening at 7.30pm - a date he couldn't have possibly kept. [debunked –AD]

K. Frederick's father claimed that, 8 or 10 months before his "disappearance" 'My son told me he had seen a large brilliantly lit object in the western sky which was flying at a tremendous speed from south to north'. His father also stated that Frederick firmly believed in the existence of UFO's. Yet no mention was made of a UFO during his last radio communication.

[“Mrs Valentich said that Freddie had told her and her husband that during his time as an Air Training Corps cadet at Sale RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) Base, he had seen classified material which had confirmed his earlier beliefs about UFOs.” –AD]

L. On the tape recording of the last conversation with the young pilot, there was no hint of panic in his voice. [and oddly used the wrong call sign a lot -AD]

You can read the full results of the investigation into each of these points at the above link. I don’t know what happened to him but based on the above, I’m convinced it had absolutely nothing to do with aliens… there’s just too many inconsistencies to dismiss as mere coincidences.

It would be fun to speculate about what actually happened though… he may have very well have ended up sleeping with the fish in Davy Jones' Locker but if so, I doubt that was part of his plan. :)

Anyway, I’ve always been extra-skeptical of UFO reports from people with a prior belief in aliens… which, by the way, is also the case with pilot of the 1986 JAL Flight 1628 over Alaska.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: best evidence

Postby Crackajack » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:47 am

Access Denied wrote:OK cool, sometimes I feel like I'm just ruining all the fun for everybody... that's why I'm no longer allowed to speak while my wife is watching those Ghost Hunter shows. :)


Lmao! Do you mentally take notes so you can drop hints at the dinner table later on?

Access Denied wrote:It would be fun to speculate about what actually happened though… he may have very well have ended up sleeping with the fish in Davy Jones' Locker but if so, I doubt that was part of his plan. :)

Anyway, I’ve always been extra-skeptical of UFO reports from people with a prior belief in aliens… which, by the way, is also the case with pilot of the 1986 JAL Flight 1628 over Alaska.


Thanks for those details AD. I hadn't seen that before but late last night I did read about the quotes from father, mother and girlfriend. When I read of his interest and quotes about ufo's I got that familiar acidy taste in my mouth (some call it a vom-burp).

A one way flight plan and lack of radar plot is interesting to say the least. With that full tank he could have flown all the way to Tasmania and landed anywhere on backyard strip down there if he had wanted to. Erasure of one's own identity would have been a lot easier back in '78. I have friends that have worked at RAAF Sale back in the day and about the most exciting thing that would have happened in that area in the 70's would have been a Ladies Club royal flush at the local tea house one Tuesday afternoon.. :D

What is a little difficult to reconcile for me though is the lack of family, legal or career problems. Typically there is some type of skeleton in the closet as a trigger to "self-disappear". He did not appear to have the motivation. Maybe he was having second thoughts about his impending engagement to his girlfriend. $300 may have got him a motel room for a week or two, but then what?

OK, assuming he's not fish food.... How bout he landed at Cape Otway, rebirthed himself, studied media and journalism for a few years, published a ufer magazine and 5 years ago relocated to Nevada and landed himself a gig as a part time announcer on C2C? Or not...

If he were alive, I would assume he would continue to follow his interest and maybe dabble in a little self advertising. Sure would burst a few bubbles if actually did show up on a radar some day.
Crackajack
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:44 am

Re: best evidence

Postby ryguy » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:50 am

Nemo wrote:What do you think about the case of the 7 or so campers who say they were "abducted"? That is based on hypnotic regression but some of their memories were without this and there are 7 witnesses.


Do you mean the Allagash 7? I grew up barely an hour from there, so the story was one that really intrigued me when I read it. I've hiked, camped and fished in those forests. My initial gut reaction was that they were just a bunch of drunken guys who saw the moon reflecting on the water and couldn't remember most of the event only because they were in a drunken stupor (until they woke up the next morning by the burnt-out fire).

The part that doesn't make sense to me (if it's true) is why their individual stories from the hypnotic regression all matched - unless, of course, they all agreed on the story beforehand.

In my opinion it definitely wasn't one of the more impressive accounts/events that I've heard or read about. Definitely not "best evidence" by far. I would propose that all accounts that come from hypnotic regression be kept out of the "best evidence" category.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: best evidence

Postby Nemo » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:17 am

That sounds o.k. Hypnosis could possibly change things. It's not known that it did but it could have. As you say, the fact that they all agreed under hypnosis but only remembered different parts consciously. Have you seen anything by the that seems suspicious as if they had a good motive for a hoax?

Now, as for that "list" of best evidence cases?
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: best evidence

Postby Nemo » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:37 am

Rejecting all reports by people who had an opinion about these things before hand would throw out many cases since I suppose everyone has heard about the subject by now and has some sort of opinion; many having decided there could be something to it.

I agree though if someone were some sort of UFO cultist and buys into the loony stuff.

Kind of related to that concept of suspicion by association: Not that I've looked into it much but Linda Moulton Howe seems to want to list some valid info. but I'm really thrown as to how she or anyone else could take crop circles seriously. I have never thought for one second that they could be anything else than what they appear to be.....pranks by late night pub goers....and lately frustrated artists. Then again I suppose she also reports on El Chupacabra, you know that's got to be real.

Peter Davenport, on the other hand, is a true researcher in my opinion who collects data and tries to sort out the chaff. He started his interest when young when he and his family saw a red or orange sphere of light performing impossible maneuvers over an airport in St. Louis.

Could Valentich have intended to radio for the airport landing lights? Maybe it was a normally unoccupied airport, being on an island. Could he have wanted a full tank because he was flying over water and didn't want that to put him down if there were stiff headwinds, had to change his route, etc? Could he also have wanted to prevent any condensation in a partly empty tank? Could he have possibly had in his head that he might stay over and fly back later or he just wanted to get started and would file a flight plan for the return trip after his arrival? That he didn't appear on radar might not mean much in and of itself. If it was certain that he should have been visible on radar then they should have been able to track his actual flight path to Tasmania or wherever.

"Disappeared" doesn't have to be in quotes. One way or another he certainly did disappear; from his family, whoever has been looking for him these past 31 years, and the girlfriend he stood up at that restaurant.

Being funny here: How does one make a "mysterious" landing?

If he went down in water he would be extremely difficult to locate, so that a search there turned up nothing isn't surprising. If he ditched successfully he still could have ben knocked unconsious and wreckage wouldn't appear. An oil slick from the fuel might though.

What you've added does add more info. though than is usually presented.
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: best evidence

Postby Nemo » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:36 am

Best evidence? Anybody? It is the name of the thread, after all.
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: best evidence

Postby longhaircowboy » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:34 pm

Here's my best evidence.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1603
http://ufohunter.forumotion.com/ufo-rep ... ion-t7.htm
There's alsso another sighting I had and it's around here someplace. It too is still an unknown.
Make of it what you will.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

Memory...is an internal rumor.
George Santayana
User avatar
longhaircowboy
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:05 am
Location: Florida

Re: best evidence

Postby Nemo » Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:24 pm

And?
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: best evidence

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:31 am

Nemo wrote:And?

You’re back? I thought we lost you… :)

Nemo wrote:Now, as for that "list" of best evidence cases?

I take it you missed my last post on the previous page?

[two month ago]

Anyway, unless or until someone wants to start a thread to discuss one of these cases and present us with their detailed analysis, here’s my opinion of your “Top 10” cases for what it’s worth…

1. Cash-Landrum - hoax
2. RB-47 (1957) – ours*
3. Lockheed (Kelly Johnson) – ours*
4. Illinois Triangle – aircraft
5. Tehran (1976) – inexperienced pilots sent to intercept a bright star or planet encounter Soviet interceptors instead
6. Betty and Barney Hill – hoax (sad)
7. Tinley Park – hoax
8. Malmstrom AFB (Robert Salas) – hoax
9. Vandenberg AFB (Big Sur) – hoax (if not misperception)
10. Belgian Triangles – helicopters and anomalous radar propagation


* “Ours” in the sense that if for example Blue Book gave no (or a seemingly nonsensical) explanation for what would otherwise appear to be a “well documented” case, you can be sure it didn’t have anything to do with aliens and most likely it was decided at some other level that Blue Book didn’t have a need to know what the explanation was for a variety of reasons.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: best evidence

Postby longhaircowboy » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:49 pm

Ok ya lost me there AD. You list quite a few hoaxes......how are they best evidence. I thought we were discussing best evidence for not against.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

Memory...is an internal rumor.
George Santayana
User avatar
longhaircowboy
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:05 am
Location: Florida

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Best Evidence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron