Your top 3 IFO cases.

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby Gilles F. » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:55 am

Greetings,

I'm asking your help to participate to a modest poll (not scientific or standardized then) I started in our french, forum Sceptic OVNI, as in UFOiconoclast blog.
http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t279 ... -ifo#47315
http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2011/11/fren ... andez.html
Here we go.

Your TOP 3 IFO cases ?

What are your best 3 ufological cases* - belonging to the shared/general casuistic** - that you consider now as explained, or enough explained, and which precisely have had the greatest impact on you, when you discovered/understood they were trivial/prosaic?
These cases have had just a "good level of strangeness" before for you, but precisely they are now for you explained, or enough explained?
In others words, what are your top 3 IFO [Identified Flying Objects] cases which have had the greatest impact to you personally?
Thank you very much for your participation, open to all, no matter what your main opinion regarding UFOs is.
Best regards,
Gilles Fernandez

* You can give less or more.
** I mean not a case you were a direct witness to or one of your own possible sightings.

PS : you can PM me if you want to stay "anonymous".

Merci à vous !
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm


Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:51 pm

I don't think any of them impact me "personally". However, I can think of so many cases that do have prosaic explanations that are promoted extensively in the UFO culture as unexplainable. Just for starters:

1) The Arizona UFOs of March 13, 1997 - The 10PM videos were positively identified as flares being dropped long ago and the 8-8:30 PM event has a plausible explanation that was mentioned in SUNlite in that a formation of aircraft flew from Las Vegas to Tuscon. This formation appeared to some as a huge dark V with lights.

2) Kecksburg - The last issue of SUNlite should demonstrate this is a non-case promoted to death by those desperately trying to make a name for themselves in UFOlogy.

3) Roswell - A little more convincing than Kecksburg's acorn but just as explainable.

Honorable mentions: RendleSHAM, Malmstrom missile shutdown, Big Sur "missile shootdown", Mexico City eclipse videos of 1991, Stephenville, Gulf Breeze

The list can go on and on and on and on.....
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby James Carlson » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:48 am

I'd have to put Echo Flight at the top of my list, even though there were few revelations for me; I already knew what the solution was, so that solution didn't strike me particularly hard at all. However, due to that knowledge, the impact on me was quite substantial. The acceptance by so many people of a tale so poorly substantiated and completely contrary to what I already knew was insulting enough to motivate me to learn as much as I could about the truth -- and that definitely had the greatest impact on me. It also forced me to learn what I could about UFO phenomena in general, a subject I had previously considered mildly entertaining at best.

As for number two, I suppose I would have to say The March 24-25, 1967 sightings at Malmstrom AFB. I realize that both numbers one and two are considered by many to be somewhat "related", but I'm confident that any such relationship is an imaginary one, so I feel it's a justifiable choice, even though my research of number one forced me to research number two. In any case, I concluded that the explanation for those sightings was definitely trivial/prosaic in nature. The effect of that discovery was somewhat illuminating, because it established in my mind that actual evidence, effective and knowledgeable testimony, confirmatory support, and appropriate supporting facts in relation to the contemporary environment in which the incident took place is simply not necessary for one's belief in the importance of UFO incidents, let alone the mere suspicion that such incidents might be related to extraterrestrial visitations.

Number three was more difficult to come up with, but I think it has to be the RB-47 case, primarily because it gave me the opportunity to see first-hand a really in-depth investigation, thanks to Tim Printy, of an old and supposedly well-substantiated UFO incident. While it's true that I personally was convinced of its prosaic nature within a fairly short period of time, I was taught how much detailed investigation is sometimes necessary to prove that prosaic nature, let alone suggest its validity. Like the above, this case's value to me was more an indication of the strength of belief in the UFO phenomena in general. As a direct result of that investigation, I now suspect that even absolute proof of a prosaic explanation may very well be insufficient to sway conviction, even when that conviction is based on so little. That agressive suspicion was somewhat unnerving, I assure you.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby LCARS24 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:35 am

The Bob White artifact has been convincingly debunked as a hoax:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-10-12/

The popular photo of "objects" over the Capitol Building from 1952 shows lens flares, not arial phenomena. The same flares sometimes appear in movies, etc. with no intent to pass them off as UFOs. One example is in Seven Days: The Football, where they appear to the right at the same elevation.

Okay, the photo is easily debunked, but that doesn't let the incident itself off the hook, since the U.S. Weather Bureau confirmed that the official explanation was not possible.

The 1969 Air Force scientific report Quantitative Aspects of Mirages (Menkello, F.G., Report No. 6112, USAF Environmental Technical Applications Center) makes a stronger statement:
"It is easy to show that the 'air lenses' and 'strong inversions' postulated by Gordon and Menzel, among others, would need temperatures of several thousand degrees Kelvin in order to cause the mirages attributed to them."


That's a bit extreme, but the conclusion of the U.S. Weather Bureau is solid enough. So debunking that popular photo shouldn't be extrapolated to the whole incident.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby Gilles F. » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:41 am

Greetings,
Thank you so much for the first replies.

NB @ LCARS24 : I think Quantitative Aspects of Mirages (Menkello, F.G., Report No. 6112, USAF Environmental Technical Applications Center) states about VISUAL mirages and explain VISUAL Mirages need temperatures of several thousand degrees Kelvin in order to cause the mirages attributed to them. The document uses optical dataes, several publications in optic, etc.
In other words, the document in my humble knowledge is not about radar ghosts , or about temperature inversions and radar, or Anomalous Progations, ducting, overreaches, etc and/or things related to radar phenomenoms. No radar discussion in it, but it is a document "devoted" on optic.

If correct, the document is often quoted as if it "debunks" or "challenging" the USAF version regarding the "radar and Temperature Inversions", but it is absolutly not really the matter of the document, a document only focused on "visual mirage" and optic phenomenoms. It could be used to "debunk" Menzel visual mirage thesis proposed for some the sightings, but not the USAF explanation offered regarding radar.
For example :
The other half of the FUFOR report is an unclassified technical paper by USAF 1st Lt. Frederick V. Menkello, written in early 1969, which challenged the mirage explanation for some visual UFO reports that had been offered by Dr. Donald Menzel—a noted astronomer and UFO skeptic.
[Bolded by me]
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... _volume_52

We have discussed it with friends recentlty, but I have never succeed to obtain the document to verify directly ( in French sorry http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t254 ... washington ).

If someone have or could have the document... ^^

Best Regards and TY again,

Gilles
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby ryguy » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:40 am

For me - definitely Malmstrom, and also the JAL flight 1628 UFO incident in 1986.

The JAL case wasn't one of the biggest sightings, but it has impacted the most through my observations in dealing with people on both sides of the fence regarding the case. I've watched as John Callahan exaggerated the story, an exaggeration promoted by Leslie Kean - even after receiving direct information that John's description of a CIA meeting was inaccurate and probably not entirely true.

On the one hand, Air Force tapes with evidence that could have revealed what the objects were, were ultimately erased (which of course, they are anyway - backup tapes are always recycled after a certain period of time - but it was still unfortunate). On the other hand, you've got a JAL flight carrying Beaujolais wine and I heard rumors that the crew was sampling a tiny bit of that very wine - not exactly bolstering the story.

So, the reason the JAL case impacted me the most personally wasn't because it was conclusively debunked or not, it was because it perfectly portrayed - in my opinion - the entire problem with this field. Truth, lies, exaggeration and inaccurate information all piled into one steaming pile of useless crap that you can't make heads or tails of at any point in the future.

Gotta love Ufology.

-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: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby LCARS24 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:11 pm

I posted the link to the eSkeptic article about the Bob White Object, but it appears that the scientists that have done testing had already cited problems with the grinding-wheel stalagmite theory before that article appeared, and the article failed to address those issues. Some complaints about that can be seen in the comments below the article. So the case is not put to rest yet.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LCARS24
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Your top 3 IFO cases.

Postby James Carlson » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:01 pm

Gilles F. wrote:If correct, the document is often quoted as if it "debunks" or "challenging" the USAF version regarding the "radar and Temperature Inversions", but it is absolutly not really the matter of the document, a document only focused on "visual mirage" and optic phenomenoms. It could be used to "debunk" Menzel visual mirage thesis proposed for some the sightings, but not the USAF explanation offered regarding radar.

I have some very serious doubts whether anything that Menkello says can even be used to "debunk" the visual mirage thesis when the observer is at ground level. The physics used to dispute such matters seems to apply only to mirages "created" at aircraft altitudes, which would require an observer at aircraft altitudes. An observer at ground level is capable of seeing mirages anywhere -- that's what makes them mirages. If you're at ground level and you see a mirage at 10,000 feet, that doesn't necessarily mean the mirage is at 10,000 feet. It's an illusion, after all, one perceived by you at a height determined by your perception. Menkello's optics -- like all optics -- are completely dependent on point-of-view. It's reasonable to suppose that the same is true of mirages. I'd like to find a copy of it somewhere to confirm that, but right now, I wouldn't accept it as having any bearing whatsoever on anything except as evidence to show that mirages seen from an aircraft are impossible. Maybe...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron