STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:50 pm

Access Denied wrote:
lost-shaman wrote:Flares don't explain these sightings IMO. In fact "Flares" have become the new "Venus" to explain UFO/UAP observations just as "Venus" became the new "Weather balloons" to explain UFO/UAP observations just as "Weather balloons" replaced "Mass Hysteria" and "War Jitters" before that!

Oh come on LS, are you denying the fact that MOST (not all) sightings are attributable to misidentifications? If so, you obviously haven’t done your homework. :D


No, I was talking about the use of popular commonplace explanations used to explain away sightings that are consistent or potentially consistent with sightings of the 'Unknowns', or the observations spanning the globe and going back hundreds of years which are consistent over time, or the observations of UAP.


Access Denied wrote:As far as flares go how many times have they been “used” to explain a sighting? I can only think of one case, the Phoenix Lights. Are you denying that’s what was seen in that case? (the later sighting/video picked up by the media, not the earlier lesser known one which was most likely a formation of aircraft at high altitude)


Yes, I think the later sighting was a very unique and unusual Flare drop. Isn't it interesting that a very unique and unusual Flare drop immediately followed the State-wide sightings earlier that evening?

A recent example of Flares used to explain a sighting happened in Jan. 2007.

Lights 'not of this world' mystery finally solved
Air Force reveals weapons tests that sparked global UFO frenzy

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarti ... 53936.html





Access Denied wrote:Your first mistake in my opinion is that there’s anything “consistent” about this sighting. Again, the various witnesses contradict each other (and themselves).


Various involuntary witnesses' seemingly contradicting each other doesn't in-and-of itself invalidate the involuntary observations of a given event. For example you seem to be arguing that a Flare drop explains the observations in which case the various witnesses' contradicting each other doesn't seem to bothersome for you. It's only when I propose the position that 'Flares' don't explain the observations that this becomes a problem and a 'mistake' on my part right? :roll:


Access Denied wrote:Your second mistake is assuming that anyone is trying to “convince” anyone of anything here… especially not the Air Force. 8)


What makes you think the Air Force doesn't have an interest in influencing public opinion on the issue of the UFO/UAP Phenomena?

Is it the fact that Gerald K. Haines states the Air Force deliberately "misinformed and decieved" the public on the CIA's behalf? :roll:

Or that this relationship ended after the CIA helped to suggest and in part sponsor the 'Condon Report'? :?

Or is that Dr. Robert Low described the 'Condon Report' in a Memo as a "trick" to 'convince' the "Scientific Community" that the UFO Phenomena was actually psychological in nature rather than a physical observable phenomena three months before the study began? :P

AD let me ask you this, do you think it would be somewhat embarrassing for the Air Force to hold a press conference tomorrow and admit that they've known for decades that American citizens along with the global population have in fact been seeing a strange atmospheric phenomena all these years? Or would it be more embarrassing for the Air Force to admit that they had no clue a strange atmospheric phenomena existed at all?

Access Denied wrote:
lost-shaman wrote:I happen to live in the region not to far a drive from Sheppard AFB, and everyone around here sees Trainers and Fighters operating in this region all the time. One thing I can tell you that you will not see is these fighters using Flares or Countermeasures over Rural or Urban areas.

I see so then how do you explain the helicopter pilot who saw flares dropped in the area on January 10th? :roll:


How do you know he actually saw 'Flares'? Or that these explain other observations that you've said were "contradictory" with each other? 8)

How do you know this witness didn't observe UAP and "misidentify" a luminous atmospheric phenomena as "Flares"? There are two sides to every coin AD, and you can't sit here and admonish me for suggesting the observations are not consistent with "Flares" while yourself pointing out MOST sightings are "misidentifications" and then asking me how do I explain one potential witness who thinks the 'lights' he saw were "Flares"!!! :wink:
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:33 pm

It occurs to me I've been remiss in not responding to LS’s questions…

lost_shaman wrote:What makes you think the Air Force doesn't have an interest in influencing public opinion on the issue of the UFO/UAP Phenomena?


UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS AND AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=188

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;

There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.


8)

lost_shaman wrote:How do you know this witness didn't observe UAP and "misidentify" a luminous atmospheric phenomena as "Flares"?

I don’t… however given the known military presence and activity in the area and the fact that many folks misidentified a formation of flares as a “huge triangular craft” hovering over the city in the 1997 “Phoenix Lights” incident it’s seems like a far more likely explanation to me in this case. You of course are free to believe otherwise and present your evidence to the contrary. :D
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]

Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:53 pm

Steve Hudgeons, MUFON Senior Investigator on the Stephenville/Dublin case, has posted the following on OM stating they believe they have identified what's in the pictures and videos...

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/inde ... 1202624401

Let me see...it has been close to 10 years since I have posted or for that matter, read, comments in this type of forum.

During that time I found the comments were more from "kids" than from adults and that most only wanted to debate, give "theories", cause problems, and or create an atmosphere that I simply didn't want to be part off.

I actually came in here tonight because of an email I received asking me about Angelia Joiner and wanting to find out as to why she was having a problem with the paper where she was employed. This person told me that he had read some things...here.....

Sooooo...here I am and I have just spent about two hours reading all of your comments. I find them to be interesting. Far better than what I ran into years ago.

Please excuse me...my name is Steve Hudgeons, the MUFON Senior Investigator on this Stephenville/Dublin case.

I regret that Ms Joiner isn't working at the paper. She and I had been working together on this so I guess I will have to delete her phone number from my cell phone now....ugh

I can't answer many questions about this case due to the many facets that have developed. I have seen the photos and the movies and my team is in agreement as to what they are, which means we have identified them.

I see you have picked up on the light show. It is strange to say the least and more will come out on that in the near future.

My team and I have reserved the Rotary Club once again on February 23rd. This time without the media. We want the witnesses that DID NOT come in to see us on last January 19, to come in this time for an interview.

To be honest with all of you here, our investigations have been undermined by "individuals" out to make themselves money and to appear as if they have the scoop. Last week I purchased a DVD that claims to have the inside knowledge on this case that the news people wont tell you.

Hmmmmmm...I said. No one knows everything my team knows about this case. The State Director and I no longer give interviews due to the fact that "others" in the UFO community, gather that info, add their own pieces and hold interviews or make DVD's and at the end of the day.....our hard work has paid off......for them.

Ladies and Gentlemen....the issue of "UFO's" is not about making a buck. It is far more important that we.....all of us......have an obligation to educate and inform not only the people of the United States but the entire world.

My team, with MUFON headquarters, will have a final statement within two months. We are still compiling witness reports. We have been asked many times as to how many reports have come in. I am really the only one of the Team that knows. I haven't let this number out for several reasons and I wont give it our here. I will give it out with a time line in the final report. I will give you something to think about.

In Texas, we have sighting reports that date from 1977 to today. I printed them out last week and I had 40 pages total. Twelve of those 40 pages have a window of December 2007 to January 2008. Two months. Six of those pages are still listed an under investigation.

Now I ask you guys.......if only 50% of the witnesses have been interviewed..........how much information do these people really have....as they RUN.....literaly RUN.... to post or make a DVD for sale or to further a fraud reputation.

Yes......this is too important to allow such things. I am sure that some of the key witnesses have been "asked" to without information from other "investigators" until they have posted interviews. Is that the way it is done? Be the "first" to post??? Or....should it be......everyone work together to get the real truth out.

MUFON, and the TEXAS DFW Team is working to do just that.

True......we have held back on information until we interview all that we can interview.

For all the good people of the Stephenville area......i'm ask that anyone that has witnessed this craft during the events of the last two months, join us on february 23rd.

Thank you
Steve Hudgeons
Senior FI MUFON DFW Texas
steve@mufondfw.org

It's not clear to me exactly which pictures and videos he’s referring to, I assume he means all that have been presented to date. It’s also not clear whether or not they believe what's in the pictures and videos is what people have been reporting. Note that Hudgeons refers to it as a "craft" in the last sentence.

Anyway, I think Hudgeons makes some excellent points about the counterproductive opportunistic (i.e. profit motivated) activities of others although I suspect his comments will fall on deaf ears… especially at OM. :roll:

I will reserve judgment on MUFON’s approach until I read their final report. :D
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]

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:47 pm

Access Denied wrote:Anyway, I think Hudgeons makes some excellent points about the counterproductive opportunistic (i.e. profit motivated) activities of others although I suspect his comments will fall on deaf ears… especially at OM. :roll:


One of the people referred to MUST be Mr. Jason Leigh who is apparently alleging that MUFON Reps asked him to make up an Abduction story and that MUFON would handle the publicity, but according to Mr. Leigh he refused this proposition.

Jason was a 'thorn in the side' of MUFON: "which some of their Texas Reps wanted me to make up a story of an abduction, which 'they' stated they would handle ALL of the publicity on. I flatly turned them down, then they tried to dispel the footage, but by then it was too late, as I had already been up to New York City on a CBS talk show where the footage was shown worldwide and the CBS experts agreed it WAS 'something' from another world."


http://www.prophecykeepers.com/leigh1.html
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:40 pm

Springer just posted this bit of mis(dis?)information on ATS…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... pid3992120

Springer wrote:The Air Force WRT this case, is full of it IMHO.

Let's look at the Air Force's responses to this so far:

"We had nothing in the sky that night" was the first response.

NO that’s NOT what they said Mark!!!

As pointed out earlier in this thread…

Access Denied wrote:Now that article also contains this much more reasonable *possible* explanation from the AF (note in the first article Major Lewis said he *might* have an explanation in a couple of days) than what was reported in the MSM news article that everybody is laughing about…

Major Karl Lewis of Naval Air Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth (Carswell Field) reported Friday that no military aircraft from his establishment were in the area Tuesday night. When questioned about military air traffic in the Stephenville area he said there could be a number of reasons for that and most likely it’s because of training missions related to the Brady area.

“There were no F16s from this unit operating and no other pilots from our unit reported a UFO,” Lewis said.

He also said the jets could have been in the area but from a different base or they could have been F18s, which are similar in appearance.

Note he’s not saying there were no jets up… only that there were no F-16s operating from his unit and no *AF pilots* saw a UFO… wink wink. :D 8)

Springer continues…

Springer wrote:Then the images and lots of witness testimony comes forward and all of a sudden the Air Force claims they had TEN F-16s IN THE AIR that night on a TRAINING MISSION. They can't produce any pilots naturally and the fact that would be one heck of a BIZARRE training mission doesn't lend much credibility to that statement either. BUT this statement lends lots of credibility to the eye witnesses who claim they saw F-16s chasing the "lights". Training or scrambling?

How do you know the AF can’t produce any pilots? Just because the AF said they couldn’t release any details of their activities due to OPSEC concerns doesn’t mean none exist. Are you claiming to have made an inquiry into this matter yourself and/or the AF lied?

Let me remind you of the “Pheonix Lights” incident which involved a National Guard unit from another STATE on the other side of the country (Maryland). Not only were the pilots not initially aware of the public’s reaction to their activities, that accounts for the later “change” in the AF’s story months later… much as we’ve seen occurr again in this incident. In fact one of the pilots didn’t come forward until 10 years later in 2007…

Intrigue persists over lights in sky
For first time, military pilot tells of dropping flares; others say 'Phoenix Lights' were UFOs
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... s0225.html

The flares exposed

Those who believed in logical explanations would have to wait four months for the proof they knew was out there when the military, spurred by a June 1997 story in USA Today that brought national attention to the Phoenix Lights, decided to take a second look.

They were flares, said the Air National Guard, dropped during nighttime exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

That simple explanation didn't fly with those who had four months of mystery on their side.

They were flares, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that launched the flares.

Jones, in his first interview with the media about the night 10 years ago, can't believe a decision to eject a few leftover flares turned into a UFO furor that continues to this day.

Jones now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard. His title has changed, but his story remains the same.

He and the rest of his colleagues were cruising the night skies of southwestern Arizona on the last night of Operation Snowbird, so named because they were winter visitors. Pilots dropped flares to light the night but had no idea they were about to ignite controversy as well.

On the way back to Tucson, not far from Gila Bend, Jones says, he reminded pilots to eject their leftover flares. Since this was their last night on maneuvers, it was more cost-effective to eject the flares than to offload and store the munitions upon returning.

"One of our guys had about 10 or so left, so he started to puke them out, one after another," Jones says. "So every few seconds or so, when the next flare was ready to go, he hit the button and launched it."

Jones looked behind him and saw an evenly spaced string of lights over the desert, floating ever so slowly to earth. Each was extremely bright, a "couple million" candle power, Jones knew. They seemed to hover because heat from the flare rose into the parachute, as if each were a tiny hot-air balloon. The planes headed for the base.

Jones and the rest of the crew returned to Maryland. Several weeks later, Jones says, "All this stuff just blew up."

News of the unexplainable Phoenix Lights reached Maryland, where the logical explanation sat waiting to be discovered. It would not be until the end of July when it was announced that the Maryland Air National Guard had launched flares that night and were the lights everyone had seen.

"With flares that bright, they can be a lot closer than they seem," Jones said. "Yes, they could have looked like they were right over Phoenix."

Since I can’t post on ATS to correct Springer I would appreciate it if somebody could set the record straight. With all this misinformation being tossed around it’s no wonder so many folks are so bent out of shape over this… :roll:

Edit to add: Mark just posted this in regards to the “harassed rancher” Sorrells…

Springer wrote:You keep saying "he's cashing in on it", how do you think he's going to do that?

If I’m not mistaken I believe LMH said she paid him for his cell phone video. Suddenly I’m feeling too lazy to look it up again though…
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]

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:48 am

It's probably best to let them scream about the injustice of it all....and libel the newspaper (I hope one of them finally gets sued for their stupidity)...

We will simply move forward and verify whether the Air Force really has "leaned" on local media to supress the story (as opposed to simply ASS-U-ME -ing it)....right Mark? Some certain folk's critical skills appear to be crumbling under the excitement or something...odd to see.

I've contacted one friend down in Texas who has some connections with the AF and might be able to ask around.... also working with the Editor who will hopefully elaborate a bit more. Our hope is that given the nonsense from all of these wingnuts...they might be willing to put out a public statement to inject some form of sanity into the mix.

Remember - the truly open-minded and level-headed folks remain objective and assume nothing...while the Exo crowd and the wind-tunnel believers start screaming about the First Amendment and Censorship...going down that road closes too many doors to all of the other possible answers that might represent the truth. We (all of you reading this as well, I hope) will strive to take the high road - and assume nothing.

I hold out hope that those reading this have the same state of mind and will maintain reason and sanity while everyone else runs around screaming like a chicken with it's head cut off...

-Ry
---
"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

Postby Gary » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:48 pm

ryguy wrote:We will simply move forward and verify whether the Air Force really has "leaned" on local media to supress the story (as opposed to simply ASS-U-ME -ing it)....
-Ry


Hi Ryan: How 'bout first defining what is meant by "leaned"; do you mean "leaned" as in the time Pandolfi requested SSR redactions; or "leaned" as in the reason Pandolfi cc Gordon on the same request; i.e.

"Should you do as I am very kindly requesting without any encouragement whatsoever from my dear trusted friend - Dr. Pandolphi - you would make yourself a real friend for the rest of your life. A genuine friend who just may come in helpful or useful to you one day is hard to come by."

Does that count as being "leaned" on? :-) Just curious!
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:45 pm

Hi Gary,

As I understand it, this situation is completely different.

You wrote a hit piece, using Ron's name hoping to get some reaction from him - maybe to force some kind of "disclosure" or whatever.

Why would it be a surprise if someone whom you wrote about, and which you used their real name, asked you not to publish it? If it were anyone else, would you have any concern? Or is it simply because his "day job" is with an Intel org?

Did he email his request that you pull the story directly from his DIA email account or from his private home account?

As far as I know - none of the reporters involved here have written any antagonistic articles publicly naming any Air Force officials as part of some cover-up....they've simply written about the sightings of craft by town-folk. While in your case, a request that you not write the hit-piece seems fairly justified - in their case - it's a completely different situation in a completely different context, and an official request from the AF doesn't seem justified, unless these were truly training and/or experimental flights and truly issues of national security.

-Ry
---
"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

Postby Access Denied » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:52 am

ryguy wrote:It's probably best to let them scream about the injustice of it all....

Yeah you’re right, no sense in beating our heads against the wall any more than we already have… people might not be able to tell the difference. :)

One last thing before I move on to the next dead horse…

Here's an interesting account apparently from another witness that makes it sound like they might be flares...

Mutual UFO Network State Assistant Director to Present Stephenville Investigation Results
http://www.sanangelolive.com/node/3444

I live in Stephenville.
Both my wife and I saw what we believe most others here have seen.
We do have 2 pictures I was able to take with my cell phone.
After hearing what people were saying about us, we decided not to release the photos publicly since
A) they are not clear enough to show detail of any significance, and
B) I really don't want to be associated in any way with this stuff.

I have heard people talk about their phones ringing at all hours of the night and early morning, everything from media wanting interviews, people making jokes, and nutcases wanting to know if they can move in with them so they can hitch a ride the next time e.t. stops by.

What we saw matches some of the claims, but not all.
We saw a long line of lights that was very bright and very out-of-place looking.
Anybody seeing this would not have immediatly thought 'what a weird plane', but more like 'what the heck is that'.

It was moving very slow towards us.
I pulled over into a nearby parking lot with the intention of getting photos using my digital camera. I soon discovered the battery in it was dead, so I whipped out my cell phone.
By the time I got my cell out and into camera mode, the lights were not as bright but looked larger.
There was a light pole nearby so I intentionally tried to include it in the pictures for possible size reference later.

It no longer looked like a single solid line of lights, but more like several seperate lights in a row.
At first I thought maybe somebody had strapped a bunch of really super-bright lights to the bottom of a small plane, but then the lights faded a little more.
The lights looked square rather than round.
It looked like they were changing configuration from a long line to a shorter dimmer line, and then quickly dissapeared.
I assumed the craft was turning because if it was a flat panel with lights only on the front, this would easily explain that illusion.

As for the sound, there was none that I noticed.
I will admit that becoming accustomed to traffic, wind, and other noises; the normal noises might have been louder than the sounds from the object drowning them out, but since I was accustomed to the normal noises, I just didn't notice any sound at all.

I should note that there was traffic, this was IN town, and only a few others seem to take notice of this. I was pulled over in a parking lot, standing my my car, taking pictures.
A young couple was walking by and they were looking, talking, and pointing, stopped a ways past us, then just continued walking after the object dissapeared.
No other vehichles appeared to slow down or even notice the object, which made me think it was probably some kind of small plane that most others are aware of, but I was not.

Then the news broke. Front page of the paper the next day and the rest is history.

Click the link to read the rest of his story. He goes on to note that he doesn't believe the military had 10 F-16s up presumably because he didn't he hear or see any however this contradicts at least one other witness (Steve Allen, the "original" witness in the local paper) who you’ll recall said he saw F-16s "chasing" the (mile long by half mile wide) "object" (going 3,000 MPH) so it's kind of hard to tell who's telling the truth here.

I have no idea if this is legit but I do find it interesting that the MUFON guy who posted after him didn't question his account... that could either because it’s a ruse to encourage more witnesses who perhaps saw something different to come forward or it’s because it’s actually similar to many other accounts they have received.

ryguy wrote:I hold out hope that those reading this have the same state of mind and will maintain reason and sanity while everyone else runs around screaming like a chicken with it's head cut off...

Yeah well hope springs eternal… for a little while. :)
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]

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:15 am

Access Denied wrote:Here's an interesting account apparently from another witness that makes it sound like they might be flares...


You're making a loose association IMO, multiple lights in-and-of itself doesn't point to Flares anymore than it points to UAP.

Again I live here in North Texas and I've seen a lot of AF training activity and never once seen or talked to anyone who's seen a Flare deployment anywhere in North Texas. Then you also must consider that all of North Texas is in Drought conditions, where most counties have declared Burn Bans. If the AF was dropping Flares on Jan. 8th over Erath Co. Tx then that opens a new can of worms! It would be basically accusing the AF of negligence!!! :?

Thanks to the Empire-Tribune Staff Writer Angelia Joiner we can see that the drought here in North Texas extended into Erath Co. Tx as early as Nov. 2007.

Commissioners to discuss burn ban
By ANGELIA JOINER Staff Writer
Monday, November 26, 2007 9:59 AM CST
http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... news03.txt


A burn ban for the county will be discussed during Erath County Commissioners Court at 9 a.m. Monday at the courthouse. Chris Gable, fire coordinator for Erath County Volunteer Fire Rescue, said Eastland, Palo Pinto and Comanche Counties already have a burn ban in effect. He said Hood and Hamilton Counties are expected to have a ban in place soon.

Based on those counties and recommendations from the Texas Forestry Service, Gable said he will suggest to commissioners to have a ban go into effect for Erath County beginning Dec. 1.

Fuel for fire is plentiful this year, Gable said, due to a wet year promoting plant growth. He said the grass is higher than it's been in a long time and not everyone has kept pastures and other areas shredded.

Gable said the Texas Forest Service is predicting a dry and warm winter making conditions favorable for fires.



Now F-16's use 'flares' (mainly countermeasures) over Bombing Ranges which are not Rural U.S.A., but even then these cause major wildfires.

F-16 Flare May Have Started N.J. Wildfire
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/ ... 1861.shtml

) Firefighters battling a wildfire that apparently began when a military jet dropped a flare on a bombing range hoped for rain Wednesday that would douse the flames.


Please note here that North Texas is NOT a Bombing Range.

Also note that countermeasures (IR Flares) are NOT the same thing as the longer burning LUU-2 illumination flares that were video taped as the second 'Phoenix Lights' event.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:41 pm

lost_shaman wrote:You're making a loose association IMO, multiple lights in-and-of itself doesn't point to Flares anymore than it points to UAP.

You’re right, it may simply point to a formation of aircraft with bright lights. :D

Perhaps this handy chart will aid you in your identification effort?

Image

:lol:

As far as the rest of your post goes, you’ve yet to present any evidence that conclusively rules out the possibility of the military using flares over the Brownwood MOA (Miltary Operations Area). If you want to impeach the account of at least two witnesses who believe that’s what they saw then I would suggest the best way would be to inquire with military to see if there are any regulations in place that specifically prohibit their use in the MOA. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it…

Personally I think this case is nothing more than a bunch of misguided hype. :roll:

Image

8)

AD
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]

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:01 am

Access Denied wrote:You’re right, it may simply point to a formation of aircraft with bright lights. :D


Yeah, it could be Fairies spreading Pixie-dust too! :) The point would be to determine whether or not people may have observed UAP. Do you consider that POV "misguided"?


Access Denied wrote:As far as the rest of your post goes, you’ve yet to present any evidence that conclusively rules out the possibility of the military using flares over the Brownwood MOA (Miltary Operations Area).


That's Cute, but have you attempted to 'Falsify' your own hypothesis yet? (You should have done that before you admonished me for not doing it for you!)





Access Denied wrote: If you want to impeach the account of at least two witnesses who believe that’s what they saw then I would suggest the best way would be to inquire with military to see if there are any regulations in place that specifically prohibit their use in the MOA. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it…


And have you "verified" that the AF does indeed 'drop flares' all over North Texas as the 'Anecdotal evidence' you just cited suggests?

If Anecdotal evidence "doesn't cut it" then what on EARTH are you talking about?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:26 pm

lost_shaman wrote:The point would be to determine whether or not people may have observed UAP. Do you consider that POV "misguided"?

In general, no… in this particular case, yes. The guy who claims a huge “craft” that hovered over his house in broad daylight and blocked out the sky on four separate occasions (that apparently nobody else in the area saw) tends to rule that out don’t you think? Oh and let’s not forget the guy who claims he and others who were with him saw a mile long by half mile wide “ship” fly over him at 3,000 MPH while being chased by F-16s… :roll:

lost_shaman wrote:That's Cute, but have you attempted to 'Falsify' your own hypothesis yet? (You should have done that before you admonished me for not doing it for you!)

It’s not my hypothesis. I stated my hypothesis in my first post in this thread and I’ve yet to see anything that could potentially “falsify” it and lead me to change my mind.

lost_shaman wrote:And have you "verified" that the AF does indeed 'drop flares' all over North Texas as the 'Anecdotal evidence' you just cited suggests?

Why the extension to “all over North Texas” instead of just within the Brownwood MOA? Are you saying you’ve collated and triangulated ALL the witness reports and you know exactly where the January 8th sighting occurred?
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]

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:05 am

Access Denied wrote:In general, no… in this particular case, yes. The guy who claims a huge “craft” that hovered over his house in broad daylight and blocked out the sky on four separate occasions (that apparently nobody else in the area saw) tends to rule that out don’t you think?


Well, rule out UAP? No I don't think so there are other witnesses describing bright lights low in the atmosphere. So no this one "guy" (who's reports you're exaggerating?) doesn't rule out UAP activity IMO.



Access Denied wrote: Oh and let’s not forget the guy who claims he and others who were with him saw a mile long by half mile wide “ship” fly over him at 3,000 MPH while being chased by F-16s… :roll:


I assume you're talking about Steven Allen. Here it doesn't matter one iota that he said he thought it was a large 'craft', what matters is that he described only seeing multiple lights from a property in Selden that changed configuration and traveled at a high rate of speed towards Stephenville (North of Selden) and then later back towards the south in the opposite direction. Again that doesn't rule out UAP, in fact it sounds quite consistent with UAP that behave in very strange manners.

Another witness David Jaquess who lives "4.6 miles" out on Highway 67 stated that he saw "UFL's" (Unidentified Flying lights - Witness description- L_S) multiple lights that he guessed were roughly 5 miles West /southwest of his location (turning into his driveway). This observation is consistent with Allen and Co.'s observation who thought the lights were roughly directly over Highway 67 (which isn't directly over their 'Heads' but rather North and East of Selden), when we consider that observers have great difficulty judging distance the two observations are consistent with the lights being somewhere North/Northeast of Selden and West/Southwest of Highway 67. Again that doesn't rule out UAP.

Another witness Anne Frazor was driving South towards Alexander on 941 who observed Bright lights (South of Selden quite near Alexander) at 6:40 pm. That is consistent with Allen and Co.'s second observation of the lights heading South in the opposite direction of their first observation. Again here that doesn't rule out UAP.

Lee Roy Gaiten the Co. Constable also describes multiple lights with strange behavior that apparently were somewhere South of Stephenville which eventually according to him traveled at a high rate of speed towards Stephenville (North or North/northeast) quite consistent with other observations. Again this doesn't rule out UAP.

Access Denied wrote:It’s not my hypothesis. I stated my hypothesis in my first post in this thread and I’ve yet to see anything that could potentially “falsify” it and lead me to change my mind.


I re-read you're first post and noted that you apparently seem to be open to several hypothetical situations. Needless to say, I'm not able to read your mind and discern a singular hypothesis from your post. You seem to suggest both Publicity Stunt and Misidentification at the same time. Or as you suggest in you're second post on this thread "take your pick between Flares and Alien Spacecraft".

Now AD you know it's not possible to prove a negative so unless you can offer positive evidence that either one of these possibilities is true or you can devise a way to test them and Falsify them then you actually don't have a testable hypothesis.

My hypothesis that UAP may be responsible for recent and recurring observations in the Stephenville area is testable. We can't say original observations on Jan. 8th were certainly observations of UAP, but we can use techniques developed in Hessdalen to observe any future lights and determine whether or not these are UAP based on spectral analysis.

Here I admit that my hypothesis would be exceedingly difficult to "falsify" in terms of the Jan. 8th observations ( I can't rule out UAP), but it is easily possible to attempt to positively identify ongoing UAP activity in the area using established techniques developed in the field at Hessdalen.

Of course, all data we have suggests UAP are a Global phenomena which tend to be sporadically localized and often recurring to local and regional areas. If we compare Stephenville observations to other global observations that I would personally deem to be observations of UAP then these seem quite consistent with other observations over time that span the globe. Remembering that UAP tend to be a high strangeness observation for all persons observing them.

Now it might be 'improbable' to get people to use transmission gratings to obtain optical spectra, but this is not 'impossible' and would positively identify UAP from artificial light sources.


Access Denied wrote:Why the extension to “all over North Texas” instead of just within the Brownwood MOA?


Well AD I live in North Texas so if the AF is dropping 'flares' anywhere near me or my family or my property I'd like to know about it!!!


Access Denied wrote:Are you saying you’ve collated and triangulated ALL the witness reports and you know exactly where the January 8th sighting occurred?


No but some of the observations seem pretty consistent with each other as I pointed out above. And it is possible to identify or falsify future observations as UAP using spectral analysis.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Access Denied » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:49 pm

Interesting post LS. I don’t know. Not sure something like that would help in this case.

Have you looked at Steve Allen’s (revised yet again) description on LMH’s site? That doesn’t sound like UAP to me. Apparently he’s claiming that the “craft” was actually 1 mile *wide* and 1/2 mile *high* now instead of 1 mile long and 1/2 mile wide as previously reported… at least that’s the way he drew it in his sketch for LMH. That’s a fairly major perceptual difference (change) for a self-proclaimed “experienced observer” (pilot) to be making so I’m not sure what to make of his account… never mind Ricky Sorrells’. I tend to think some of these folks are just pulling your leg and with any luck, laughing all the way to the bank...

As far Lee Roy Gaiten’s account goes, he and some others claim the “symbols” videos and photos which are obviously the result of using digital zoom with “night shot” mode (to me anyway) are actually what he saw with his eyes… big red flag in my opinion. Also, his claim that an (anonymous) police officer said he saw a "huge [two to three football fields long] cigar-shaped aerial craft with two “antennas” topped by red lights moving slowly about 300 to 400 feet in the air near the Stephenville, Texas, courthouse" sounds pretty sketchy.

Again, the problem here seems to be the various accounts don’t really match up and some are apparently on different days…. some saw only one or two lights, others saw nine or ten, some saw F-16s and/or helicopters and others didn’t etc. You may see some consistency in a few select reports as you attempted to show above but I don’t know how anybody could possibly make heads or tails of statements like these for example…

Texas Towns Become Epicenter Of UFO Sightings
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=7899153

A big long area of bright, bright, intensely bright lights," said dental office administrator Claudette Odam.

"The lights or the navigation lights are what I saw," said Mac McKinnon with the Dublin Citizen Publisher.

"They were extremely bright." said retiree James Huse.

"In a line, in a straight line and so long," said Odam.

"What was so odd, these lights were flashing like a strobe," said Constable Lee Roy Gaitan

"A strobe that just kept going and going and going," said Odam.

"I have a drawing that I made," said Huse.

"Other lights would start doing stuff," said Odam.

"It appears to be maybe something like this and it's just spinning around," said Gaitan.

"It had kind of a flat bottom on it; it was round, kind of gum-drop shaped," said Huse.

"It would look like, kind of like a light show," said Odam.

"They were not just strobing; they were moving around," said Gaitan.

"It was like an energy field of some sort, going through the center of it," said Huse.

"In an instant, they were gone," said Gaitan.

Now perhaps there’s two different things going on here? Maybe there’s some (long term?) UAP type activity going on along with some folks misinterpreting a (ongoing?) military training exercise on January 8th or maybe some of these folks are the victim of a (ongoing?) hoax and/or “mass hysteria”?

[shrug]

This was just published on Wednesday in the Stephenville Empire-Tribune (where the “fired” reporter worked) which seems to indicate MUFON may be thinking that way…

MUFON planning return trip to Dublin
http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 211269.txt

[emphasis mine]

They’re back!

Investigators with the Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) are preparing for round two of witness interviews in what is now being called the largest mass UFO sighting since the case of the Phoenix Lights, which occurred in 1997.

Since the Empire-Tribune first broke the story about area residents spotting an unidentified flying object hovering in the skies above Erath County on Jan. 8, the cowboy capitol has been abuzz with worldwide media attention and some accounts say that the sightings have continued. Following the sightings and media coverage, investigators from MUFON first traveled to Dublin on Jan. 19 and invited locals to come forth and tell what they experienced during the first few weeks of 2008. More than 400 individuals, including witnesses and a slew of reporters, camera crews and other media personnel from around the world, attended the meeting.

More than 50 area witnesses reported seeing unusual lights of varying shapes, sizes and colors and the DFW Chapter of MUFON recently reported on their Web site, www.mufondfw.org, that from Jan. 8 - Jan. 30, a total of 154 reports were received from across the state. The Web site also states that those 154 reports are in addition to those gathered on Jan. 19. The total number of accounts from across the state is now more than 200, although some of the reports date as far back as the 1960s.

Steve Hudgeons, a senior field investigator with MUFON, said the organization has reserved the Dublin Rotary Building for Feb. 23. The meeting is set to begin at 1 p.m.

Ken Cherry, state director with MUFON Texas, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that investigators don’t expect to uncover new information during the meeting, but hope to gather greater details to help with the investigation.

“We do have an unusual opportunity, due to large number of witnesses involved, to gather additional information to come up with more accurate composites of the two types of UFOs being reported. The more information we gather, the better. More reports and details of sightings can help us determine the object’s direction of travel and speed. We can pinpoint where the witnesses were and use the information to triangulate more accurately what it is that was sighted.”

Cherry explained that only a handful of people typically report such sightings, which makes this case so extraordinary.

“Normally, we have too little information and too few data points; so, this is a very special case,” Cherry said.

In hopes of getting to the bottom of the unusual occurrences that have surrounded the county, MUFON will compile information gathered during the Jan. 19 meeting, reports made through www.mufon.com and greater details gathered at this weekend’s meeting to determine what it is that area residents saw flying high in the sky above Erath County.

Cherry also explained that, due to the large number of reports, it would be some time before MUFON issues an official report on their findings.

Not sure why they didn’t get that kind of info the first time but I see MUFON is also planning on holding a separate meeting on March 9th to discuss the case…

http://mufondfw.org/mdf/meetings_and_events.html

March 9th, 2008
Valley Ranch Public Library
401 Cimarron Trail
Irving, TX 75063
2:00 PM

Ken Cherry, Steve Hudgeons, James Shatley and Terry Groff will discuss the recent events in Stephenville and Dublin, Texas.

$6 for members
$8 for non-members/guests

All attendees will receive a genuine Dublin Dr. Pepper and/or a MUFON Bumper Sticker while they last

The Media is not allowed

No photography or recording devices without direct permission from Ken Cherry

Any chance you could make it and report back here? I’ll pay the cover charge (seriously).

[you can keep the bumper sticker and I’ll also provide any needed “deprogramming” lol]
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]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron