The best evidence for UFOs

[Phaeton80]

Matrix dude, matrix.
 

Quote

The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are a popular cultural meme, a metaphor representing the choice between:

• Knowledge, freedom, and the brutal truths of reality (red pill)
• Security, happiness and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill)

 

[Fila]

13 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Im continuously finding myself stupified when people just couple 'extraterrestrial' with anything unidentifiable and/or exemplifying behaviour our commonly known tech is unable to reproduce.

I totally agree. I think we should boycott anyone who displays bias on both sides. Believers are just as guilty as scoffers imo.

[Fila]

13 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I know we cross this one off the list but here is a link on U-M about it:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/

Thank you so much. This was a great thread. I had a lot of fun going through it last night.
I'm really glad they are not claiming ET. It makes it easier to take them seriously.

[Fila]

On 02/06/2018 at 3:01 PM, stereologist said:

The Phoenix Lights is one of the least credible cases. It was a squadron of planes. Anyone that suggests that the Phoenix Lights is one of the credible cases simply has no idea what they are talking about.

The Rendlesham incident is also a poor choice for a credible case.

The Belgian UFO wave was a poor case with the best evidence from those sightings being a hoax.

The Hessdalen lights do not fall into the same group of sightings as these other cases.

Hi Stereo. I re-visited the Phoenix Lights thread and found the case to be inconclusive still. I know you speak with 100% certainty on this case, and I have thoroughly read your perspective.., but I disagree with your methods used to reach such a definitive conclusion. This type of conjecture would not hold up in the court of law.., or in a scientific journal.

I will add the Phoenix lights back onto the list.., as well as the Rendlesham forest Incident, as I believe that case has hit a stalemate also.
I will also be putting the Hessdallen lights back up, as I don't really understand your point about this event being "different" from others. Feel free to elaborate more in the Hessdalen thread. (Link provided below)

I will review the Belgian UFO wave later, and see if it could potentially be a hoax.

 

THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR UFOs.

So far we have:

 

Project Hessdallen

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4XNfDZArig

 

CNES - GEIPAN

French government space agency

http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=206

 

CUFOS 

The Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) is an international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers dedicated to the continuing examination and analysis of the UFO phenomenon.

http://www.cufos.org/

 

UFO EVIDENCE

Scientific study of the UFO phenomenon and search for ET life

http://www.ufoevidence.org

 

UFODATA

We seek to create a systematic, rigorous science of UFO phenomena. Such a science is needed because of misplaced certainties on both sides of the UFO debate: “believers” convinced that UFOs are extraterrestrials, and “skeptics” equally convinced that UFOs do not even exist.

http://www.ufodata.net

 

LIST OF CREDIBLE CASES

Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980) - https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/283603-rendlesham-forest-ufo-sighting-new-evidence/.

Japan Air 1628 (1986)

Tehran UFO (1976)

Belgian UFO wave (1989)

Kirtland AFB (1957) - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/232293-kirtland-air-force-base-ufo-november-1957/#comment-4425527

Michigan UFO (1966)

Westwall (1966)

Hessdalen UFO wave (1981) - https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/

Phoenix Lights (1997) -  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=2

 

(Feel free to add your own, or argue against anything on the list)

Edited June 3, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

Hi Stereo. I re-visited the Phoenix Lights thread and found the case to be inconclusive still. I know you speak with 100% certainty on this case, and I have thoroughly read your perspective.., but I disagree with your methods used to reach such a definitive conclusion. This type of conjecture would not hold up in the court of law.., or in a scientific journal.

I will add the Phoenix lights back onto the list.., as well as the Rendlesham forest Incident, as I believe that case has hit a stalemate also.
I will also be putting the Hessdallen lights back up, as I don't really understand your point about this event being "different" from others. Feel free to elaborate more in the Hessdalen thread. (Link provided below)

I will review the Belgian UFO wave later, and see if it could potentially be a hoax.

 

THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR UFOs.

So far we have:

 

Project Hessdallen

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4XNfDZArig

 

CNES - GEIPAN

French government space agency

http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=206

 

CUFOS 

The Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) is an international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers dedicated to the continuing examination and analysis of the UFO phenomenon.

http://www.cufos.org/

 

UFO EVIDENCE

Scientific study of the UFO phenomenon and search for ET life

http://www.ufoevidence.org

 

UFODATA

We seek to create a systematic, rigorous science of UFO phenomena. Such a science is needed because of misplaced certainties on both sides of the UFO debate: “believers” convinced that UFOs are extraterrestrials, and “skeptics” equally convinced that UFOs do not even exist.

http://www.ufodata.net

 

LIST OF CREDIBLE CASES

Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980) - https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/283603-rendlesham-forest-ufo-sighting-new-evidence/.

Japan Air 1628 (1986)

Tehran UFO (1976)

Belgian UFO wave (1989)

Kirtland AFB (1957) - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/232293-kirtland-air-force-base-ufo-november-1957/#comment-4425527

Michigan UFO (1966)

Westwall (1966)

Hessdalen UFO wave (1981) - https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/

Phoenix Lights (1997) -  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=2

 

(Feel free to add your own, or argue against anything on the list)

You of course disagree on the Phoenix Lights and it is clearly a squadron of planes. You are free to find the situation inconclusive for whatever reason you want. It was a squadron of planes. Your claims of "court of law" and "scientific" are rather worthless suggestions.

The simple fact of the matter is:

1. Stanley reported seeing planes

2. People heard planes

3. The video shows that the lights are not connected

4. The speed, lights, and the formation is consistent with planes

You are free to add this obvious plane incident to your list It simply shows how pathetic the UFO studies really are.

Adding the Rendlesham incident to the list reinforces how pathetic the UFO studies really are.

Mixing the Hessdalen lights with UFO studies is another bizarre move since it mixes an interesting real event with the loony idea that the Phoenix Lights are unexplained.

 

[Fila]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You of course disagree on the Phoenix Lights and it is clearly a squadron of planes. You are free to find the situation inconclusive for whatever reason you want. It was a squadron of planes.

The simple fact of the matter is:

1. Stanley reported seeing planes

2. People heard planes

3. The video shows that the lights are not connected

4. The speed, lights, and the formation is consistent with planes

I would call this "cherrypicking" data. Picking what you need to make your opinion sound more believable. (I.e. "The video" are known flares, not the earlier lights.

I am starting to sense a hint of bias in all your posts Stereo. You have clearly made up your mind (which is okay).., but your letting it cloud your judgement on this one.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Your claims of "court of law" and "scientific" are rather worthless suggestions.

Do you really think "Stanley saw planes" is conclusive? You think Stanley's word is considered gospel in the court of law?

This shows we are always going to be on a different level. I'm sorry Stereo. Until you can understand why this is unacceptable.. I don't have the time to keep this discussion going with you. Perhaps one of your peers reading this would like to weight in and back you up?

If not.., I will just have to say goodbye for now. I'll keep reading your posts and looking for relevant points.., but I think I am done here.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You are free to add this obvious plane incident to your list It simply shows how pathetic the UFO studies really are.

Oh, I already know how pathetic they are. It's been my pet peev since day one. And most likely the biggest issue really.
The way these cases are "solved" is beyond my comprehension. Reminds me of the banana guards from Adventure time trying to solve a crime.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Mixing the Hessdalen lights with UFO studies is another bizarre move since it mixes an interesting real event with the loony idea that the Phoenix Lights are unexplained.

Please explain the difference between the Hessdallen UFO wave and other UFO sightings? I am very interested to know.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

The worst evidence for UFOs are these not credible cases

The  Phoenix Lights - no matter what year is chosen.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-phoenix-lights-are-no-mystery-6661825

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/alien_lights_at_phoenix_stephenville_and_elsewhere_a_postmortem

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21/

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up-6422930

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041

http://www.nicap.org/articles/PhoenixLights_MUJ_Feb1999.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

Rendlesham Forest Incident

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/283603-rendlesham-forest-ufo-sighting-new-evidence/.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-03-28/

Japan Air 1628

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2014/07/jal-1628-capt-terauchis-marvellous.html

Belgian UFOs - 1989

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2011/07/classic-ufo-photo-from-belgian-wave.html

https://noriohayakawa.wordpress.com/2016/03/19/famous-belgian-black-triangle-ufo-a-fake-edgar-fouches-tr3-b-is-also-a-hoax/

http://www.ibtimes.com/controversial-belgian-ufo-image-confirmed-hoax-after-two-decades-818981

Kirtland AFB - 1957

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/232293-kirtland-air-force-base-ufo-november-1957/#comment-4425527

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_AFB_UFO_sighting

http://thecid.com/ufo/uf18/uf7/187523.htm

Michigan UFO - 1966 (the swamp gas event)

http://www.ufocasebook.com/michigan1966chase.html

http://michigansotherside.com/1966-michigan-ufo-swamp-gas-case/

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_secret_life_of_j_allen_hynek

Westall - 1966

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/the-westall-ufo-incident-still-remains-a-mystery-50-years-after-it-occurred/news-story/f002a9da51358af2e9aca4b3d5cd81de

https://www.theage.com.au/news/national/academic-throws-light-on-40yearold-ufo-mystery/2005/10/01/1127804696941.html

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

 

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

I would call this "cherrypicking" data. Picking what you need to make your opinion sound more believable. (I.e. "The video" are known flares, not the earlier lights.

I am starting to sense a hint of bias in all your posts Stereo. You have clearly made up your mind (which is okay).., but your letting it cloud your judgement on this one.

Do you really think "Stanley saw planes" is conclusive? You think Stanley's word is considered gospel in the court of law?

This shows we are always going to be on a different level. I'm sorry Stereo. Until you can understand why this is unacceptable.. I don't have the time to keep this discussion going with you. Perhaps one of your peers reading this would like to weight in and back you up?

If not.., I will just have to say goodbye for now. I'll keep reading your posts and looking for relevant points.., but I think I am done here.

Oh, I already know how pathetic they are. It's been my pet peev since day one. And most likely the biggest issue really.
The way these cases are "solved" is beyond my comprehension. Reminds me of the banana guards from Adventure time trying to solve a crime.

 

Please explain the difference between the Hessdallen UFO wave and other UFO sightings? I am very interested to know.

No cherry picking - just facts. You apparently have no idea what cherry picking means. FO r example, I posted a link to the video of the first event, not the flare videos. But you already know that.

Avoiding the facts and you pretending in the Phoenix Lights that the witness statements were consistent is a clear sign of a mind made up and unable to judge the data.

Stanley saw planes. He watched the planes and noted that they were indeed planes. Yes, that would be an excellent witness in a court of law.

It is obvious you have zero interest in getting the facts right. It seems much easier for you to avoid learning. The Phoenix Lights is a great example in which you pretend that the witness statements were consistent. That is simply wrong. Reports were all over the places with differing numbers of lights, colors of lights, altitude, speed, direction, sound, arrangement, solid, not solid, etc.

 

[Fila]

21 hours ago, stereologist said:

No cherry picking - just facts. You apparently have no idea what cherry picking means.

Yes. You have provided a great example by only stating what facts you want.., while ignoring the rest. You are really showing your bias here.

21 hours ago, stereologist said:

Avoiding the facts and you pretending in the Phoenix Lights that the witness statements were consistent is a clear sign of a mind made up and unable to judge the data.

If anyone is avoiding.., its you. You do a great job of ignoring my questions, and taking the convo the way you want. This may work IRL by yelling and using anger.., but becomes blindly obvious when in text form.

I said I understand that witness reports can vary. The human mind is not infallible. We actually ruin memories each time we access them. However.., this does not mean its a false memory. Especially considering an exciting event or experiencing something new or traumatic. It doesn't negate the claim or memory automatically as you would like.., but it also isn't considered gospel. Both conclusions are incorrect.

I saw an incident downtown. I remembered some details better than others. Others noticed details I did not. Some details I got wrong. Everyone got some details wrong. There is no such thing as a "photographic memory" in the true sense of photograph.

No report was exactly the same.., and this is normal. Police, judges and lawyers all understand this and compensate by not taking 1 report as gospel. We discussed this in great length on another thread. Seeder got it. You are using a known issue with human memory as "proof" the event never took place.

Also, witnesses reported seeing a large craft. Very large. The variations in shape could be explained by this size.., and perspective. If it was a triangular shape.., then its appearance would alter from various angles and perhaps height (on a hill or in a valley).

I notice it with RC planes, drones and helicopters. They change appearance and shape when flying, which makes it hard to tell direction. Try it sometime.

21 hours ago, stereologist said:

Stanley saw planes. He watched the planes and noted that they were indeed planes. Yes, that would be an excellent witness in a court of law.

Your showing bias here by saying Stanley is better than everyone else. What is this based on? How do you judge character so confidently?

I put it to you.., that you only consider him reliable simply because he says it wasn't a UFO. And no other reason. Otherwise.., how are you gauging witness credibility?

Kinda like the whole "pilots are reliable" spiel (Unless they saw a UFO) which I think can also be shown in that thread.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Fila

[Trelane]

Belief systems aside, there has been no conclusive evidence of the aerial phenomenon being anything other one of two things. Misidentifications or outright  hoaxes. I was once very eager to believe but over time and a balanced informed perspective I have tempered my enthusiasm. I have not seen one piece of "evidence" to change my opinion.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Trelane

[Fila]

49 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Belief systems aside, there has been no conclusive evidence of the aerial phenomenon being anything other one of two things. Misidentifications or outright  hoaxes. I was once very eager to believe but over time and a balanced informed perspective I have tempered my enthusiasm. I have not seen one piece of "evidence" to change my opinion.

Greetings lonely Squire of Gothos. What do you think about the Hessdallen UFO wave?

It's probably the best we can find so far. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/

Edited June 5, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

55 minutes ago, Fila said:

Yes. You have provided a great example by only stating what facts you want.., while ignoring the rest. You are really showing your bias here.

If anyone is avoiding.., its you. You do a great job of ignoring my questions, and taking the convo the way you want. This may work IRL by yelling and using anger.., but becomes blindly obvious when in text form.

I said I understand that witness reports can vary. The human mind is not infallible. We actually ruin memories each time we access them. However.., this does not mean its a false memory. Especially considering an exciting event or experiencing something new or traumatic. It doesn't negate the claim or memory automatically as you would like.., but it also isn't considered gospel. Both conclusions are incorrect.

I saw an incident downtown. I remembered some details better than others. Others noticed details I did not. Some details I got wrong. Everyone got some details wrong. There is no such thing as a "photographic memory" in the true sense of photograph.

No report was exactly the same.., and this is normal. Police, judges and lawyers all understand this and compensate by not taking 1 report as gospel. We discussed this in great length on another thread. Seeder got it. You are using a known issue with human memory as "proof" the event never took place.

Also, witnesses reported seeing a large craft. Very large. The variations in shape could be explained by this size.., and perspective. If it was a triangular shape.., then its appearance would alter from various angles and perhaps height (on a hill or in a valley).

Your showing bias here by saying Stanley is better than everyone else. What is this based on? How do you judge character so confidently?

I put it to you.., that you only consider him reliable simply because he says it wasn't a UFO. And no other reason. Otherwise.., how are you gauging witness credibility?

Kinda like the whole "pilots are reliable" spiel (Unless they saw a UFO) which I think can also be shown in that thread.

I provided evidence for planes. Please tell me what I ignored. You made the claim that the witness reports were consistent and have failed to tell us what that is. That isn't bias. That is fantasy.

You can drop the frantic irate attitude. Calm down and stop the venomous commentary. Please post an on topic question you want answered.

The simple fact of the matter is that you claimed that the Phoenix Light witness reports were consistent. Are you now admitting that they are not? They certainly had zero consistency. I realize that your terrible anger gets the best of you and you feel the need to made up stories that are untrue. The simple fact of the matter is that there was no general consensus. All of the reports were wildly different.

So calm down and stop the anger and simply provide the consistent report you claim exists.

There is no need to lie. This is another of your bald faced lies: "You are using a known issue with human memory as "proof" the event never took place." I never suggested or stated  that.

The only person bringing up the fallibility of human memory is you. I never did that. you and only you are doing that. I never suggested or stated that the event never took place. That is a bald faced lie.

So you are suggesting that the consensus of reports is that the craft was large. Please provide the evidence for that. I believer that is wrong. You are making a guess based on probably a single report. Please show the evidence to support your claim.

Another mistake. A triangle is always a triangle no matter what the perspective. Please provide the evidence that the consensus is that it was a triangle. I believe that is also a bad guess on your part.

I did not judge Stanley by character. I have not brought up ayone's character other than the politician's who tried to get a political jump. This guess on your part is simply illustrative of the way in which you think. Stanley had the best view. He had the best optics and was able to determine not only that they were planes but also the shape and general type of plane. He also was able to determine that what the eye saw as single lights was in fact a pair of lights. People with binoculars corroborated Stanley's observations. Stanley was also stationary unlike some witnesses reports from moving cars.

It is stunningly clear that the only reason you don't believe the observations of Stanley is because it makes the Phoenix Lights believers such as yourself look foolish. I go with the best data and the best observer is the one with the best optics in this case.

The Phoenix Lights are so obviously planes it is probably painful to accept that simple fact.

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Greetings lonely Squire of Gothos. What do you think about the Hessdallen UFO wave?

It's probably the best we can find so far. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/

It is intriguing due to the documented events. I personally feel that there is a natural process that causes them. I know that seems far fetched in itself, but it seems more plausible than an unknown possibly extraterrestrial vehicle.

[stereologist]

The Tehran 1976 incident has been offered as one of the best cases. Probably not.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4315

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

 

[Horta]

On 6/4/2018 at 11:56 AM, stereologist said:

 

Mixing the Hessdalen lights with UFO studies is another bizarre move since it mixes an interesting real event with the loony idea that the Phoenix Lights are unexplained.

 

Couldn't agree more. Unexplained lights are a real phenomena that happen in many places, with scientists studying some instances. There generally isn't any definite craft associated with them though, nor any real reason to suppose they are anything other than natural phenomena.

Surely the best way to look at this would be to remove as much ambiguity as possible. As the op is obviously talking about observed aircraft for which there appears no mundane explanation and therefore "could be aliens" (which he obviously is despite being purposefully vague about it), would it not be a good idea to give preference to those claims where a craft was clearly and unambiguously sighted to begin with?

Phoenix Lights.

The very name says it all... "lights". Everything that is available for scrutiny indicates separate lights, but no singular craft at all. 

"Lights".

Rendlesham Forest.

"Lights". 

Japan Air 1628.

The pilot was a ufo/alien buff with history of ufo sightings, the co pilot and engineer saw nothing of their (ufo)  appearance that would out of necessity, distinguish them from "stars". Nor did they see definite "craft".

"Lights".

Kirtland AFB

Happened at 22.45 (ie. night). 

"Lights".

Michigan

Original reports were of...

"Lights".

Westall

This is the only one on the list that is unambiguous in that a large group clearly saw an unusual disk shaped object.

 

So out of that list, only one can lay claim to unambiguously sighting any sort of craft to begin with. The problem with it is that it didn't fly in a way that negated physics or that would necessitate"alien" explanations. Not looking terribly convincing so far it seems...

Edited July 4, 2018 by Horta

[Fila]

49 minutes ago, Horta said:

Couldn't agree more. Unexplained lights are a real phenomena that happen in many places, with scientists studying some instances. There generally isn't any definite craft associated with them though, nor any real reason to suppose they are anything other than natural phenomena.

Hessdallen is a UFO observatory.

49 minutes ago, Horta said:

"Lights".

"Lights". 

"Lights".

Happened at 22.45 (ie. night). 

"Lights".

"Lights".

Yes, lights. Still UFOs though. Please do not confuse UFO (unidentified) with alienz. I'm willing to go into detail in specific threads if you'd like. The more people jumping in the better hey.

49 minutes ago, Horta said:

Japan Air 1628.

The pilot was a ufo/alien buff with history of ufo sightings, the co pilot and engineer saw nothing of their (ufo)  appearance that would out of necessity, distinguish them from "stars". Nor did they see definite "craft".

What is a UFO buff? Someone who believes UFOs exist?

Well that's okay. Hessdallen has kinda proven UFOs exist, same with the discovery of sprites, elves etc that were considered myths.., But are you saying this guy believed so hard.., that he created solid hits on the FAA's radar? Enough to gain attention from the CIA?

I know this is a CT site.., but c'mon now. Save the TK theories for a different sub-forum.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Fila

[Golden Duck]

On 05/06/2018 at 9:41 AM, Fila said:

...

Your showing bias here by saying Stanley is better than everyone else. What is this based on? How do you judge character so confidently?...

Phoenix had a population of about a million at the time of the Phoenix Lights.  One in hundreds is better than one in thousands. 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Horta said:

 

Westall

This is the only one on the list that is unambiguous in that a large group clearly saw an unusual disk shaped object.

 

So out of that list, only one can lay claim to unambiguously sighting any sort of craft to begin with. The problem with it is that it didn't fly in a way that negated physics or that would necessitate"alien" explanations. Not looking terribly convincing so far it seems...

This may interest you. 

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

[Horta]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

This may interest you. 

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

Thanks psyche.

A well reasoned piece with a logical explanation. Which narrows the above list down to 0 credible sightings of unexplained craft.

[Horta]

From a Skeptical Enquirer article entitled  "FAA Data Sheds New Light on JAL Pilot's UFO Report" by P. Klass. This was based on the FAA report itself, which he purchased. It seems the pilot had reported quite a few "ufo's", including one not long after this for which the FAA found "stationary lights" on the ground as the explanation (and which the pilot later agreed with).

It seems the FAA reviewed it's radar data also, and found nothing to corroborate the pilot's claims.

So we have a pilot convinced of aliens, with a history of wrongly reporting ufos, radar date that was unable to verify any ufo's, other aircraft in the area unable to verify any ufo's, and two other people in the cockpit who could also not corroborate the claims...

 

Quote

The FAA data package reveals Terauchi to be a "UFO repeater," with two other UFO sightings prior to November 17, and two more this past January, which normally raises a "caution flag" for experienced UFO investigators. The JAL pilot is convinced that UFOs are extraterrestrial and when describing the light(s) Terauchi often used the term spaceship or mothership.

 During his January 2 interview with FAA officials, Terauchi said that he believed the "mothership" intentionally positioned itself in the "darkest [easterly] side" of the sky because "I think they did not want to be seen." This enabled the UFO to see the 747 "in front of the sunset and visible for any movement we make." In his report to the FAA, he expressed the hope that "we humans will meet them in the new future"... [On January 11] he again reported spotting unusual lights in roughly the same area while on a repeat flight from Paris to Anchorage...

[Terauchi] always failed to mention that two other aircraft in the area that were vectored into the vicinity of the JAL 747 to try to spot the UFO he had been reporting were unable to see any such object... [Flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuba] "was not sure whether the object was a UFO or not"... When the copilot [Takanori Tamefuji] was asked if he could distinguish these lights "as being different" from a star, he replied: "No."

 

[stereologist]

We have the unsupported statement that Hessdalen is a UFO observatory. I believe that is a made up story that is typical of the sort of scoffing I've come to expect. There is no reason to connect Hesdalen to these other reports. There is no craft there. There are unidentified lights in the sky and the team using the Hessdalen AMS are all looking for earthly causes for the lights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_AMS

Mixing Hessdalen with UFOs is like mixing atmospheric optical events with UFOs - poor thinking.

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Getting very tired of the personal attacks and bickering in this thread.

Keep it civil please.

[Fila]

I am sick of it too. Not just this thread.., but across many others. 

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This may interest you. 

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

This guy takes forever to say nothing. That's always a big red flag.

All that blabbering.., and he says it might have been a "fairly accurate description" of a balloon. (lol, sorta kinda maybe)

His second "conclusion" is a drogue.., even though "there's no evidence that anyone was conducting any drogue exercises there at the time. There's no evidence that they didn't, but we can't do any better..."

But we can't do any better... lol.  80 years of UFO "research" summed up in one sentence.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Fila

[psyche101]

On 04/07/2018 at 8:22 PM, Fila said:

I am sick of it too. Not just this thread.., but across many others. 

You are one of the worst offenders IMHO. 

Quote

This guy takes forever to say nothing. That's always a big red flag.

All that blabbering.., and he says it might have been a "fairly accurate description" of a balloon. (lol, sorta kinda maybe)

I'd call that 'descriptive' 

There was one strange craft launched that day, however: A weather balloon, reported the next day in the newspaper The Age as a possible explanation for the event. It was launched from Laverton two and a half hours before the sighting, 32 kilometers west-northwest of Westall. The Age reported that the wind was blowing from the west, and if it continued southeast near Clayton South, the balloon could likely have disappeared from view behind the row of trees, very close to 11:00am when the sighting happened. 

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

 Bit more than 'sorta maybe' in my opinion, but I've not seen you consider conventional explanations too often, you seem more taken with the ET claimants as you illustrated with the Phoenix fizzer.

Quote

His second "conclusion" is a drogue.., even though "there's no evidence that anyone was conducting any drogue exercises there at the time. There's no evidence that they didn't, but we can't do any better..."

But we can't do any better... lol.  80 years of UFO "research" summed up in one sentence.

I think the contribution of the RAF navigator is the best answer, what are you proposing? Not like we have much to work with is it. 

The Air Force personnel Samblebe referred to were probably four Air Force investigators who showed up on April 9, three days after the event, to look at what was said to be the landing site. A number of enthusiasts from various UFO groups accompanied them, but apparently nothing interesting was found, because nothing was documented from this visit.

Something else that's grown over the years has been the number of witnesses at the school. The Dandenong Journal reported at that time that only one teacher and "several" students saw the object, but by now that number has grown to 200. This number is probably artificially inflated by what behavioral psychologists call the bandwagon effect.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

And that's all we do know for certain. Pretty unimpressive and if you think a better answer than that provided by the RAF navigator is hidden in there, go ahead and impress everyone with what you're seeing in there. Fact is like most UFO/ET stories, this one is greatly exaggerated. Storm in a B  cup. 

You're rather easily impressed by old  UFO/ET tales aren't you. 

[Fila]

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You are one of the worst offenders IMHO. 

Your opinion is trumped by facts.

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'd call that 'descriptive' 

I call it baloney. You got fooled by fancy words. I refuse to use academic language in my reports. I was having lunch with a lecturer who does crossword puzzles.., and I said why bother knowing all these fancy words for the same thing? 

You know several different ways of saying "happy". Cool.., but you coulda learnt several different languages. Something beneficial / practical. What's practical about using fancy words to appear smarter, more eloquent?

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think the contribution of the RAF navigator is the best answer, what are you proposing? Not like we have much to work with is it. 

Not much to work with.., so it must be a balloon.

Yes.., this is the issue with your research abilities. This is not the correct procedure. Full stop. Regardless of the topic. Hastily formed conclusions have been linked to people being uncomfortable with ignorance.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6477056

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

*snip* for potential copyright infringement

I hope you get a post about not providing a source link...

What you posted adds nothing to your argument. You just posted a quote.., which does not back up your claim. The quote says nothing was documented (I assume by the Airforce)..., and memories change over the years. Which is why the author says "Does that make them wrong? Of course not. But if we want to determine the most likely account of what really happened, we go to the original sources. We go to the original documentation of what the witnesses reported 44 years ago,"

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

Edited July 4, 2018 by Fila