STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:19 am

Access Denied wrote: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…


No, I don't frequent LMH's site.

Remember that it doesn't matter at all that he 'thinks' he saw a large 'craft', what he described observing was multiple lights apparently spread over a fairly large distance that exhibited high strangeness behavior. My hypothesis that his and others involuntary observations can be attributed to UAP is not ruled out simply because an observer thought they were looking at a 'giant craft' rather than a high strangeness multiple UAP event.


Access Denied wrote: 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 for Sorrells I haven't been able to correlate his "sighting" with the other observations. (Can you?) The fact that we're even talking about Sorrells is almost completely attributable to Angelia Joiner who seems to have NO experience in correlating observations and who apparently latched onto and focused on Sorrells as his 'Story' became more complex and conspiratorial in nature.


Access Denied wrote: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.


Again this is just an involuntary witness' 'after-the-fact' subjective opinion of what he 'thinks' he might have seen.

Has anyone shown him photos of UAP?




Access Denied wrote: 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.


People see multiple UAP and their natural instinct is to 'connect the dots' and describe a 'giant craft' when they are actually just observing a high strangeness multiple UAP event.

This is not unprecedented at all even when talking about Low Strangeness events. Take the 10:00 pm 'Phoenix Lights' Flare event for example. Here we have a fairly Low Strangeness Flare event that most people 'thought' was a High Strangeness "Giant Craft" hovering over Phoenix.

If people tend to 'connect the dots' when observing multiple Illumination Flares that are Low Strangeness imagine people observing High strangeness multiple UAP events!

This begs the question, If people observing Illumination Flares miles away from Phoenix describe a "Giant Craft" and this is the direct result of observation of multiple lights (Flares) in the sky, why assume another observation of multiple lights in the sky that involuntary witness' describe as a "Giant Craft" is actually a 'Hoax' rather than involuntary observations of Multiple lights (UAP or Flares)?

You seem to be making the assumption that if an involuntary witness describes a "Giant Craft", then 'someones' getting their leg pulled in a "Hoax" for profit. Yet the Phoenix Lights 10:00 pm event, as an example, shows the exact opposite. People were actually observing Low Strangeness luminous Phenomena in the form of LUU-2 Illumination Flares and subsequently described a "Giant Craft".





Access Denied wrote:Again, the problem here seems to be the various accounts don’t really match up and some are apparently on different days….


Observations on different days simply tell us we are talking about different observations, this doesn't rule out ongoing UAP activity.


Access Denied wrote: some saw only one or two lights, others saw nine or ten, some saw F-16s and/or helicopters and others didn’t etc.


Sure AD, but we are talking about multiple involuntary witness' who are spread over a geographic area and made their individual observations at different times. You have to consider that before you simply assume that these observations aren't exactly the same therefore they must be inconsistent.

For example you point out that some observers say that they also saw F-16's while others did not, yet we know according to the latest AF 'story' that there were in-fact 10 F-16's operating at the time. Here the original observers reporting F-16's in the area were adamant that they had seen F-16's and Strange Lights!

Access Denied wrote: 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 for Sorrells I haven't been able to correlate his "sighting" with the other observations. (Can you?) The fact that we're even talking about Sorrells is almost completely attributable to Angelia Joiner who seems to have NO experience in correlating observations and who apparently latched onto and focused on Sorrells as his 'Story' became more complex and conspiratorial in nature.



Access Denied wrote: 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…


Well AD it's true that not everyone is going to be equally adept at making 'Head or Tails' from Involuntary Witness' statements of observation. Here literally your 'Red Flags' tend to be consistent with UAP IMO!!!




Access Denied wrote: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”?


I can't believe you forgot "Swamp Gas" and "Venus"! If you're considering Four hypothetical situations simultaneously then why not Five or Six?

Contrast that to my 'hypothetical' that 'UAP' explain the involuntary observations.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:15 am

MUFON has released the following “special” report…

Stephenville Lights: A Comprehensive Radar and Witness Report Study
Regarding the events of January 8, 2008, 4pm to 8pm
http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONSte ... Report.pdf

If ever there was a shining example of what’s wrong with UFOlogy this is it in my opinion. Although one might be tempted to applaud the authors for the obvious amount of effort they put into their analysis, it’s clear to me the authors are suffering from confirmation bias and failed to apply the scientific method properly to rule out the ETH and reach the most likely (to me anyway) conclusion supported by the available evidence as to the nature of what occurred on that day…

[the ADH]

In the midst of a military exercise involving a large number of military aircraft, including at least 10 F-16 fighter jets flying in and around the Stephenville-Dublin area doing only they know what (dropping flares?) and apparently an AWACS aircraft circling overhead at high altitude, a number of witnesses made a number of misidentifications of conventional objects. This was further complicated by the widespread press coverage these sightings received fueled by the hype created by a number of apparently hoaxed and/or unrelated sightings reported in the local press and the valid need to maintain National Security both for the military exercise itself, and possibly at least one “unknown” aircraft apparently heading at a speed consistent with a helicopter or weather balloon [*] directly toward, and tracked within 10 miles of, the President’s Crawford Ranch.

Why the authors of the report are demanding that they have a right to know exactly what all was going on that day because the government potentially “failed” to protect our airspace as “evidenced” by that fact that the known military aircraft in the area did not appear to respond to the “unknown” aircraft tracked on civilian radar is beyond me. Would anyone like to buy a clue?

Better yet is their interpretation of “anomalies” in the radar data as possible verification of the claims for “unknown” objects traveling at ridiculously high speeds that would blow over buildings at that low altitude… the “OMG it was a mile wide alien spaceship!” crowd is falling all over themselves on that one.

Highly strange indeed…


[*] weather balloon (aka you never know) 8)

JSF: X-35B Mission "X" Compilation Video (circa 2001)
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35b_high.wmv (high bandwidth)
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35b_low.wmv (low bandwidth)


Edit to add: Steve Hudgeons, a senior MUFON field investigator and the North Texas Assistant State Director made this surprisingly level-headed statement on OMF just before the above report was released…

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/inde ... e=4#111612

I'm going to have to say.......in history in general. There are no smoking guns that I am aware of. Plenty of photos, movies, and so called metal fragments but no hard evidence of metals not of this Earth, DNA not of this earth, and certainly no two or four footed EBE to share a conversation with.

Is that all due to the "powers that be" whisking it all away as fast as it "lands"? I don't know.

Is it because there is no life out there even able to "land"? I don't know.

Anyone can come in here...as I have said many times...and lay claim to anything.......say......anything.......without any proof what so ever and there will be readers, in here, that believe what they read.

I mention proof. Ok, what is that? Proof is all in the eye of the beholder because it certainly isn't in anyones hand.

Without that "proof" in your hand all you have is hearsay evidence. I have seen in the past where people have posted threads on message boards, such as this one, as to having an insider feeding him or her with the true knowledge of this UFO secret. After months and months of little bits of info the readers walk away with no more knowledge than they had when they walked up. Oh and guess what happens then? For some reason, the source no longer gives out info.

So, with all due respect........no smoking gun within UFO history in general.

Steve

Of course he was then summarily burned at the stake by JakeReason who cited the ’42 “Battle of LA” and the ’52 “UFOs over the White House” as “smoking guns” … until Hudgeons released the radar report that is… at which he point he asked him if that was the smoking gun to which he replied…

NOPE......no smoking gun here and this is where you miss my total meaning.

Take all the data, photos, films, reports.....take it all to a court of law and see what it gets you.....

Absolutely no where. THAT is what I have been doing my best to pound into your head. For some reason you think I have an agenda to blast everything I see which is very incorrect.

You can beat up on me all day long but at the end of everyday you, me, and everyone else in here is no where closer to the truth.

That brings all of us to ask................what will it take to have PROOF!!!!!!!!

Yes that radar report is a great report. It is the data to back up the report we filed on what the witnesses saw and reported. It shows what?

It shows.........unknowns.

Ok now what is that? It will be brushed off as radar anomalies or radar reports that have been misread.

It makes no difference what I believe it to be nor what YOU belive it to be because at the end of it all we are still left looking up to the sky with plenty of DATA, plenty of FACTS.......plenty of evidence..........but NO SMOKING GUN the will win in a court room.

I know I'm wasting my time here with you because you will twist this around due to a fact I now see, you just refuse to open to my meaning.

Possibly others in here will read this and understand what I am trying to say.

Steve

Nice to see someone in MUFON being as honest with himself as he is with others…
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:46 am

Access Denied wrote:failed to apply the scientific method properly to rule out the ETH


Sorry for the partial quote, but your entire statement is directly above this post so..

AD, I don't think you really elaborated on this... AD, can you take the same data and apply the scientific method properly to rule out the ETH? Considering you are the only one mentioning the ETH...

Unless you're joking, right? =P~
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:59 am

lost_shaman wrote:AD, can you take the same data and apply the scientific method properly to rule out the ETH? Considering you are the only one mentioning the ETH...

Unless you're joking, right? =P~

No, I’m not joking… you’re fooling yourself if you actually believe nobody’s advocating the ETH in this case even if they don’t mention “it” and yes, I posted the same post I posted here on BAUT and we hashed it out there…

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-the ... ost1281105

Some comments of mine in response to one particularly troubled ETH/coverup advocate who reposted the report in another thread as the “smoking gun”…

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-the ... ost1281810

Which Tim Printy summed up nicely here…

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-the ... ost1284969

Simply put, there’s ZERO evidence to support the ETH and the radar data as presented doesn’t support the author’s conjectures or the witnesses beliefs/claims that something extraordinary 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]

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:23 am

Access Denied wrote:No, I’m not joking… you’re fooling yourself if you actually believe nobody’s advocating the ETH in this case even if they don’t mention “it”


Of course there will be people that do advocate the ETH, but who cares?

The ETH wasn't mentioned one single time in the MUFON report by the Authors that I'm aware of. Anyway, we don't have to concern ourselves with the ETH just because someone else out there does (even if that is MUFON). All we need to do is look at the data, and do so objectivity. As I've said before I think most of these Jan. 8th events are nicely explained as UAP events/observations. The RADAR/eye-witness data does not exclude UAP, but rather "reads" like an intense UAP event IMO. (excluding the Crawford event where I don't have an opinion.)


Access Denied wrote:Simply put, there’s ZERO evidence to support the ETH and the radar data as presented doesn’t support the author’s conjectures or the witnesses beliefs/claims that something extraordinary occurred.


I'd disagree in that the data/evidence does seem to show that the witnesses were apparently making observations at the same time and in the direction that the RADAR's were 'painting' unknown returns. Also what the witnesses are describing isn't really "extraordinary" in the sense that the witnesses seem to be describing an interesting UAP event.

I'd like to remind you that I proposed in this thread that this was likely a UAP event before this MUFON report came out; my opinion is that the report supports my position that this was most likely an interesting UAP event.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:33 am

lost_shaman wrote:All we need to do is look at the data, and do so objectivity.

Unfortunately I don’t think that’s possible for you…

So tell us LS, do you believe Steve Allen (the pilot) saw a “ship”, “about a mile long and a half mile wide” (later changed to a mile wide and half mile high), traveling at “3,500 feet above ground level,” at “about 3,000 miles per hour”? Yes or no.

Note that the radar data (two very weak "skin paints" 20 sec apart from each other) doesn't support your "high strangeness multiple UAP event" hypothesis given earlier in this thread that you used to attribute his description of a "craft" to "multiple lights apparently spread over a fairly large distance".

Also, do you believe Ricky Sorrells (the rancher) saw a “flat, metallic object hovering about 300 feet” over him that “blocked out the sky"? Yes or no.

And finally, did you notice in the MUFON report that one of the witnesses (a “chief of police”) stated “It is not usual to see flares in that area” in reference to the Brownwood MOA hence contradicting your earlier assertion in this thread that they wouldn’t be dropped there?
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:58 am

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:All we need to do is look at the data, and do so objectivity.

Unfortunately I don’t think that’s possible for you…


Yeah, thanks for that AD I'll try and return the favor ASAP.


Access Denied wrote:So tell us LS, do you believe Steve Allen (the pilot) saw a “ship”, “about a mile long and a half mile wide”, traveling at “3,500 feet above ground level,” at “about 3,000 miles per hour”? Yes or no.


My position has been that this was a multiple UAP event.

Access Denied wrote:Note that the radar data (two very weak "skin paints" 20 sec apart from each other) doesn't support your "high strangeness multiple UAP event" hypothesis given earlier in this thread that you used to attribute his description of a "craft" to "multiple lights apparently spread over a fairly large distance".


I'd note that I never said anything about those two "skin paints" you are talking about, and that 'my hypothesis' predated any public RADAR data.

Access Denied wrote:Also, do you believe Ricky Sorrells (the rancher) saw a “flat, metallic object hovering about 300 feet” over him that “blocked out the sky"? Yes or no.


Did that happen on Jan. 8th?


Access Denied wrote:And finally, did you notice in the MUFON report that one of the witnesses (a “chief of police”) stated “It is not usual to see flares in that area” in reference to the Brownwood MOA hence contradicting your earlier assertion in this thread that they wouldn’t be dropped there?


I read that, but that is the first person I've ever heard in North Texas ever say anything about 'Flares'. I'm pretty skeptical.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:43 am

lost_shaman wrote:Yeah, thanks for that AD I'll try and return the favor ASAP.

Sorry, it’s just that after having tirelessly debated UFOs with you (for what, over two years now?) I had hoped you would have developed a better ability to detect unscientific and illogical reasoning by now and not let yourself be misled by others.

Let’s try this a different way…

lost_shaman wrote:My position has been that this was a multiple UAP event.

I know but that’s not what I asked you.

So let me ask you this then… what makes you think this “multiple UAP event” as you call it wasn’t simply multiple sightings of multiple aircraft in formation/maneuvers and possibly (although not necessarily) dropping flares and/or using other countermeasures?

lost_shaman wrote:I'd note that I never said anything about those two "skin paints" you are talking about, and that 'my hypothesis' predated any public RADAR data.

You mentioned the skin paints in your post before this one…

“…the data/evidence does seem to show that the witnesses were apparently making observations at the same time and in the direction that the RADAR's were 'painting' unknown returns”

You do realize there were only two “skin paints” associated with the first set of sightings (the 6:10pm to 6:25pm time period as discussed in the report) that included Steve Allen’s who reported seeing (according to the MUFON report) 4 to 7 lights right?

Neither of these two separate (and quite possibly completely unrelated) “skin paints” of “unknowns” support the presence of multiple UAP at the same time (because they were 20 seconds apart) so based on MUFON’s interpretation of the data, Steve Allen either saw one very large (“mile wide”) “craft” with multiple (changing) lights (otherwise one would expect multiple returns) or he saw multiple objects (lights) some or all of which did not show up on radar as “unknowns”.

The former can be ruled out because the other witnesses (if we are to presume as MUFON did that their sightings all correlate to the same “object”) did not report seeing a very large “craft” with 4 to 7 lights (in fact they reported anywhere between 1 and 10 lights) and the later suggests (allowing for expected variations/inaccuracies in reporting) they all may have seen the same sortie of 4 military aircraft (“knowns”) that were tracked on radar in the same general area, direction and time… a fact the MUFON report (conveniently?) fails to point out as an alternative explanation.

Now please tell me why you believe the data supports a “multiple UAP event”?

You said you had “no opinion” on the second set of sightings (6:40pm to 7:15pm and 9:30 pm) that included multiple (nearly 200) “skin paints” of a single “unknown” that was tracked heading towards Crawford for over an hour at an average speed of less than 50 MPH.

lost_shaman wrote:Did that happen on Jan. 8th?

What difference does it make? I asked you whether or not you believed Ricky Sorrells account.

lost_shaman wrote:I read that, but that is the first person I've ever heard in North Texas ever say anything about 'Flares'. I'm pretty skeptical.

Did you not see the news report I mentioned earlier in this thread about the Fort Worth medical helicopter pilot who believed he saw flares in the direction of Granbury (towards Stephenville and the Brownwood MOA) two nights later?
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:17 am

Access Denied wrote:Sorry, it’s just that after having tirelessly debated UFOs with you (for what, over two years now?) I had hoped you would have developed a better ability to detect unscientific and illogical reasoning by now and not let yourself be misled by others.


Nice snipe AD... =D>


Access Denied wrote:Let’s try this a different way…

lost_shaman wrote:My position has been that this was a multiple UAP event.

I know but that’s not what I asked you.

So let me ask you this then… what makes you think this “multiple UAP event” as you call it wasn’t simply multiple sightings of multiple aircraft in formation/maneuvers and possibly (although not necessarily) dropping flares and/or using other countermeasures?


When this event happened and subsequently was reported it seemed to me that the observations were quite consistent with a UAP event and not some 'psychotropic' nonsensical 'tales' from backwoods 'retards' describing routine Military flights as 'Space Aliens'!

To date nothing has come to light that I've seen that makes me think this wasn't just simply a UAP event.





Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:I'd note that I never said anything about those two "skin paints" you are talking about, and that 'my hypothesis' predated any public RADAR data.

You mentioned the skin paints in your post before this one…

“…the data/evidence does seem to show that the witnesses were apparently making observations at the same time and in the direction that the RADAR's were 'painting' unknown returns”

You do realize there were only two “skin paints” associated with the first set of sightings (the 6:10pm to 6:25pm time period as discussed in the report) that included Steve Allen’s who reported seeing (according to the MUFON report) 4 to 7 lights right?

Neither of these two separate (and quite possibly completely unrelated) “skin paints” of “unknowns” support the presence of multiple UAP at the same time (because they were 20 seconds apart) so based on MUFON’s interpretation of the data, Steve Allen either saw one very large (“mile wide”) “craft” with multiple (changing) lights (otherwise one would expect multiple returns) or he saw multiple objects (lights) some or all of which did not show up on radar as “unknowns”.

The former can be ruled out because the other witnesses (if we are to presume as MUFON did that their sightings all correlate to the same “object”) did not report seeing a very large “craft” with 4 to 7 lights (in fact they reported anywhere between 1 and 10 lights) and the later suggests (allowing for expected variations/inaccuracies in reporting) they all may have seen the same sortie of 4 military aircraft (“knowns”) that were tracked on radar in the same general area, direction and time… a fact the MUFON report (conveniently?) fails to point out as an alternative explanation.

Now please tell me why you believe the data supports a “multiple UAP event”?


First, concerning UAP specifically, there can be one large charged aerosol body which is not radiating visible light and within this body there can exist multiple spherical bodies radiating visible light and often these are described as rotating around a common barycenter. From an observers POV I'd consider this a 'multiple UAP event'.

From the perspective of RADAR returns, the large charged aerosol body itself can reflect/or obscure the RADAR beam even if it is not visible to the naked eye. If that is the case there is only going to be one "skin paint" on the Primary RADAR's while ground observers report observing 'multiple' lights.

I kinda find it a bit funny that what you personally think rules out UAP in fact is consistent with what we know about UAP!


Access Denied wrote:You said you had “no opinion” on the second set of sightings (6:40pm to 7:15pm and 9:30 pm) that included multiple (nearly 200) “skin paints” of a single “unknown” that was tracked heading towards Crawford for over an hour at an average speed of less than 50 MPH.


To clarify I only meant the very last RADAR track described that didn't have a corroborating observation. I also retain the right to change my opinion concerning this RADAR track at any time.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Did that happen on Jan. 8th?

What difference does it make? I asked you whether or not you believed Ricky Sorrells account.


I'm sorry AD but you're going to have to get much more specific than that because I don't know what you're specifically asking me as related to a potential Jan. 8th UAP event, and yes whether or not it happened on Jan. 8th does matter.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:I read that, but that is the first person I've ever heard in North Texas ever say anything about 'Flares'. I'm pretty skeptical.

Did you not see the news report I mentioned earlier in this thread about the Fort Worth medical helicopter pilot who believed he saw flares in the direction of Granbury (towards Stephenville and the Brownwood MOA) two nights later?


Yeah I do remember, I remember it being a "Wild Guess" by a person who said, "And it was something that I'd never seen before". My educated "Guess" is that this person had never seen UAP before either.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:42 pm

I meant to post this earlier but I forgot and now seems like a good time as we approach the one year anniversary of this “flap”. Tim Printy has put together a summary of his findings (some of which he and I discussed on BA as noted earlier) in this case…

STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS: Trying to make much about very little
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/svilletx.htm

Case Closed?

While this writing offers probable answers to many of the major questions raised by the Schulze-Powell MUFON report, it does not "seal the deal" and offer a definitive conclusion. UFO proponents will continue to state there was something extraordinary in the skies over Stephenville that evening but as one can see, there are other answers that are far more reasonable. This is just another example of UFO proponents ignoring the more likely scenario of misperception in favor of the less likely alien spaceship in the sky scenario. It also demonstrates they continue to ignore the lessons of the 1997 Sturrock panel where it was stated by a panel of scientists that " to be credible to the scientific community, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses. (Sturrock 124)." While the MUFON reports about Stephenville provided a fair summary of the data and reports, their conclusions ignored the most likely hypothesis that could explain most of the events described.

Obviously I concur. As I said in my first post on January 15th when this story “broke” in the MSM…

“…I already see a number of big red flags that lead me to believe this may be a publicity stunt at worse or a case of misidentification at best.”

One point that Tim makes that I was previously unaware of is how different for example Steve Allen’s original report to NUFORC made on January 9th shortly after the sighting on the 8th was from that reported in the local Stephenville press on January 10th…

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/060/S60743.html

Curiously flashing strobes weren’t mentioned at all in the press reports.

Thoughts?
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:13 am

Access Denied wrote:Tim Printy has put together a summary of his findings (some of which he and I discussed on BA as noted earlier) in this case…

Obviously I concur. As I said in my first post on January 15th when this story “broke” in the MSM…

“…I already see a number of big red flags that lead me to believe this may be a publicity stunt at worse or a case of misidentification at best.”

Thoughts?


Yeah, I have thoughts...

I think both MUFON and Printy (AD included because you are Printy's buddy) are both wrong. Apparently neither one of these groups has seriously considered UAP as an explanation for what the witnesses described that they witnessed.

AD, I'm also slightly offended by the fact that you failed to continue a dialog with me about UAP on this thread only to show up with a post 6 months later endorsing Printy's "findings"! (that ignore UAP!)

As I said earlier in this thread, "To date nothing has come to light that I've seen that makes me think this wasn't just simply a UAP event." I still maintain that opinion.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:33 am

lost_shaman wrote:AD, I'm also slightly offended by the fact that you failed to continue a dialog with me about UAP on this thread only to show up with a post 6 months later endorsing Printy's "findings"! (that ignore UAP!)

Sorry, I’m also slightly offended by the fact that you failed to answer my simple and direct question about Ricky Sorrells’ account. (regardless of when it allegedly happened) Rather then press the issue I decided to drop it.

lost_shaman wrote:As I said earlier in this thread, "To date nothing has come to light that I've seen that makes me think this wasn't just simply a UAP event." I still maintain that opinion.

Understood but the problem is you need to explain why the witnesses didn’t think they were seeing aircraft when in fact the radar data shows there were several aircraft in the area at the same time and in the same direction of their sightings… that they didn’t report seeing.

In other words, why couldn’t they simply be misunderstanding what they were seeing?

Arguing the sightings are “consistent with UAP” isn’t a valid explanation… if that were the case then logic dictates all UAP could be misidentifications because you haven’t ruled that possibility out.
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:05 am

Access Denied wrote:Sorry, I’m also slightly offended by the fact that you failed to answer my simple and direct question about Ricky Sorrells’ account. (regardless of when it allegedly happened) Rather then press the issue I decided to drop it.


Yeah, I was also going to ask you if you believed Michael Jackson's account that he never had plastic surgury but then I realized that it had absoluetly nothing to do with the Jan. 8th sightings in question so I droped it too. :wink:

Access Denied wrote:Understood but the problem is you need to explain why the witnesses didn’t think they were seeing aircraft when in fact the radar data shows there were several aircraft in the area at the same time and in the same direction of their sightings… that they didn’t report seeing.

In other words, why couldn’t they simply be misunderstanding what they were seeing?


For one thing RADAR can "see" a lot more aircraft than Human eyes can "see".

Also North Texas is a very heavily trafficked airspace. I travel all over North Texas and also live here and there is no-where one can go without being able to look up and see at least two or three aircraft in the sky at any given time day or night. If anyone needs to explain anything you need to explain why a group of North Texans would independently report apparently normal "aircraft" traffic in a manner that was consistent with UAP out of the blue on a normal air traffic day.


Access Denied wrote:Arguing the sightings are “consistent with UAP” isn’t a valid explanation… if that were the case then logic dictates all UAP could be misidentifications because you haven’t ruled that possibility out.


What you just said doesn't make any sense. You see AD sightings consistent with UAP have been reported for well over a Hundred years. Modern technology and aircraft can NOT explain early similar and consistent sightings. Thus there never was any reason to think that misidentifications explain Modern sightings in the first place when the sightings are consistent over time!
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby Access Denied » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:25 am

lost_shaman wrote:Yeah, I was also going to ask you if you believed Michael Jackson's account that he never had plastic surgury but then I realized that it had absoluetly nothing to do with the Jan. 8th sightings in question so I droped it too. :wink:

MJ had plastic surgery?

lost_shaman wrote:For one thing RADAR can "see" a lot more aircraft than Human eyes can "see".

Depends.

lost_shaman wrote:If anyone needs to explain anything you need to explain why a group of North Texans would independently report apparently normal "aircraft" traffic in a manner that was consistent with UAP out of the blue on a normal air traffic day.

Because aircraft lights (and stars or planets) can look like “balls of light”?

Is it “normal” for UAP to “flash” like strobe (anti-collision) lights as reported by the witnesses?

Is it “normal” for a formation of F-16s to fly directly over Stephenville?

Is it “normal” for 10 F-16s to be involved in an exercise over the Brownwood MOA… and deploying countermeasures (flares)?

It would appear you haven’t familiarized yourself with the details of this case.

lost_shaman wrote:You see AD sightings consistent with UAP have been reported for well over a Hundred years.

Please start a new thread to provide evidence for this claim.

lost_shaman wrote:Modern technology and aircraft can NOT explain early similar and consistent sightings. Thus there never was any reason to think that misidentifications explain Modern sightings in the first place when the sightings are consistent over time!

We’ve discussed this before… one of the biggest mistakes of UFOlogy (one of the reasons why it’s not taken seriously) is to not consider each sighting separately. Also, you fail to consider the psychosocial aspects.
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: STEPHENVILLE, TX - Rash of UFO Sightings

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:13 pm

Access Denied wrote:Because aircraft lights (and stars or planets) can look like “balls of light”?


In other words, AD thinks semantics are fun!


Access Denied wrote:Is it “normal” for UAP to “flash” like strobe (anti-collision) lights as reported by the witnesses?


It's been observed in 'Hessdalen Phenomena' which are UAP being studied in Hessdalen. See EMBLA 2002.


Access Denied wrote:
Is it “normal” for a formation of F-16s to fly directly over Stephenville?


Why not? I've seen them fly over other North Texas' wilderness and Towns, including my own, and that isn't uncommon so why would Stephenville airspace be avoided?

Two of the 10 military jets apparently also flew over or very close to my hometown of Vernon on the evening of Jan. 8th. And don't forget that the Military training route from CAFB to the Brownwood MOA is located almost directly above Stephenville!

Access Denied wrote:Is it “normal” for 10 F-16s to be involved in an exercise over the Brownwood MOA… and deploying countermeasures (flares)?


As far as I can tell, no. That simply doesn't happen. Maybe the Air Force has a specific place in North Texas that it does drop flares, however, the idea that F-16's are flying around North Texas dropping Flares in places that the witnesses in question would have seen them during a time of extreme drought and Fire hazard is nonsense, if not simply your own pure fantasy!


Access Denied wrote:It would appear you haven’t familiarized yourself with the details of this case.


Whatever...

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:You see AD sightings consistent with UAP have been reported for well over a Hundred years.

Please start a new thread to provide evidence for this claim.


I'm not making a "claim". I shouldn't have to start a new thread, because I'm not making a "claim". I'm simply repeating what was stated in amoung other places a report you once told me on RU that I should "re-read"! Oh, the irony... Obviously you've read that MOD report then, right?

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

It is clear that they (UAP- l_s) have been reported as exceptional occurrences throughout recorded history, using the language of the times. (Executive Summary, pp 7, para 1)



Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Modern technology and aircraft can NOT explain early similar and consistent sightings. Thus there never was any reason to think that misidentifications explain Modern sightings in the first place when the sightings are consistent over time!

We’ve discussed this before… one of the biggest mistakes of UFOlogy (one of the reasons why it’s not taken seriously) is to not consider each sighting separately. Also, you fail to consider the psychosocial aspects.


Forget UFOlogy! I'm not talking about Space Aliens visiting Earth, I'm talking about UAP an admittedly rare but naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests

cron