Witnesses and Corroborating Accounts

[stereologist]

Let's not forget that nothing in science can be proved. That is where all of this started.

I also realize that I need to separate out facts from theories. Facts are things we believe to be true. Did you know that on 3 occasions science has shown that things Nobel prizes were awarded for have been shown to be false? In at least one case it had to do with the workings of the inner ear. A test in space revealed the error. To be fair the original investigation had suggested that testing was dependent on the experience of gravity.

[L.A.T.1961]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

 

I dont ignore stories i just don't blindly believe them, call it a person problem from being jaded by full of bull con artists, am I being fair?

 

There is no problem with being cautious, I would encourage that approach and its what I do. I have posted on a few threads in this section and some have been ufo reports.  I have indicated then that there is a good rational explanation for what was seen or videoed. 

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

 

I did not want to post a link to a particular ufo sighting because, as I have explained above, it is witness reliability, and if they should be believed in the first instance, that is the subject of the thread. I have tried to show that different standards used to assess witness reports are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But seeing as you have asked so nicely  I will provide a witness statement that details an interesting account of a ufo sighting.

The witness in this case was Wing Commander Stan J. Hubbard RAF. 

Scroll down to FLYING SAUCERS OVER FARNBOROUGH in the link - 

Extract form Hubbard's account - 

**snipped story**

See more on the link - https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/flying-saucer-working-party/ 

It is only a witness statement with no evidence but do we ignore it or not?  

I don't ignore it, but I don't put much stock in it without corroborating evidence.

One question I have are things like how could you smell ozone if it was not close by? I've passed under loudly cracking power lines and have smelled no ozone.

What I did appreciate about the story is that the person cannot determine the speed, size, altitude or anything else about what they observed.

[L.A.T.1961]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I don't ignore it, but I don't put much stock in it without corroborating evidence.

One question I have are things like how could you smell ozone if it was not close by? I've passed under loudly cracking power lines and have smelled no ozone.

What I did appreciate about the story is that the person cannot determine the speed, size, altitude or anything else about what they observed.

 

The smell would vary on range and amount of ozone produced, both factors would be needed to find out why a smell was detected.

I find it  reassuring that the witness did not try and put exact figures on speed, size and altitude because as we know this can be difficult to judge precisely without triangulation.

What he witnessed though was to a good enough observational level to indicate it was flying and not a conventional aircraft.   

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

He sounds like a reasonable witness to me, but others might have a different view.

<grin> What do you think? Shooting the messenger is a common retort for the otherwise defenseless.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

 

The smell would vary on range and amount of ozone produced, both factors would be needed to find out why a smell was detected.

I find it  reassuring that the witness did not try and put exact figures on speed, size and altitude because as we know this can be difficult to judge precisely without triangulation.

What he witnessed though was to a good enough observational level to indicate it was flying and not a conventional aircraft.   

So you think it is reasonable to detect the smell of ozone created far enough overhead that the altitude could not be determined? I think that is an odd part of the story.  I could not smell the ozone when standing below the large number of crackling lines coming south from the James Bay area project. The crackling sound was amazingly loud, but no odor. Remember that in this story the object is in motion whereas I was below stationary power lines that were continuously crackling.

 

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

<grin> What do you think? Shooting the messenger is a common retort for the otherwise defenseless.

Which is what you often do as in avoiding Fravor's comments on Day by attacking the site which reported it.

[ChrLzs]

7 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It is only a witness statement with no evidence but do we ignore it or not?  

An easy one.  Yes, we ignore it *unless* there are multiple repeat observations, or there were independent corroborative statements.  Not 'after-I-read-about-it' copycat reports.

Have you never had a vivid / lucid dream that could easily be later remembered as a real event?  Never mis-remembered something, never had a desire for fame or just fifteen minutes of attention?  Never heard of someone going loopy?  Never had a relative that gradually embellished a tale that slowly changed into something unrelated to reality?  I could offer a whole pile more reasons, but you should get the picture..

Do you think that any of that is somehow different just because you are a pilot, or a cop, or whatever?  NO.

People tell stories, it's that simple, yet it could be for a myriad of reasons, and to them the memory may be 100% 'real'.  But if you think that memories and anecdotes are reliable, then this is a topic you are unfamiliar with.

 

So, YES.  Without evidence or repeated new observations, then it SHOULD be ignored.

In fact I'd ask the reverse question.. OK, let's accept that this was a real event that happened exactly as described.

Now what?  It didn't hurt anyone.  It hasn't come back.  It didn't leave any evidence except one person's mental imprint. It doesn't contain anything that helps to identify whether it was ET, or some other sort of paranormal thing, or even some blinged-up terrestrial flying device.

Would you not agree that apart from creating a story that someone told, once long ago, that it had no effect on reality whatsoever?

And now, what exactly should we do about it, to ensure that next time it happens, it is properly evidenced?

I'll answer that one for you:

1. We should engage in a long term project to equip the worldwide community with recording devices, and keep improving both the coverage and quality of those devices.  (Oh look, we already did that ..... and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.)

2. We engage in a long term project to better surveill the skies!  Make astronomy equipment cheaper, higher quality, and much more capable.  (Oh look, we already did that and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.  Go visit any astronomy forum and see how much discussion there is about UFO's - pretty much ZERO.. except for identifications, which are much easier now thanks to things like Heavens-Above, Stellarium, FlightAware)

 

In summary, yes, there's lots of stuff up there that is (initially at least) unidentifiable, and some of it looks weird if you are not familiar with what is possible.  But 99.9% of it is identifiable, and the remaining 0.1% is explainable.   Aliens?  NO, not yet.

Edited October 17, 2019 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

7 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Just to add to my post above I did try and find at the time if Hubbard had profited from selling his ufo story or used it to sell a book or was otherwise a dubious witness, I could find nothing but others might turn something up.

And you don't even mention the plethora of other reasons that might exist for him telling a 'tale'....  That's my point.  You do that single check and it verifes the statement somehow?  No.

7 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

He sounds like a reasonable witness to me, but others might have a different view.  

Yes, indeed we do.  Being a 'reasonable' witness is subjective, and pretty much irrelevant.  False memories may be 'real' to the person, so they are giving a 'reasonable account', but it is 100% false!

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

An easy one.  Yes, we ignore it *unless* there are multiple repeat observations, or there were independent corroborative statements.  Not 'after-I-read-about-it' copycat reports.

Have you never had a vivid / lucid dream that could easily be later remembered as a real event?  Never mis-remembered something, never had a desire for fame or just fifteen minutes of attention?  Never heard of someone going loopy?  Never had a relative that gradually embellished a tale that slowly changed into something unrelated to reality?  I could offer a whole pile more reasons, but you should get the picture..

Do you think that any of that is somehow different just because you are a pilot, or a cop, or whatever?  NO.

People tell stories, it's that simple, yet it could be for a myriad of reasons, and to them the memory may be 100% 'real'.  But if you think that memories and anecdotes are reliable, then this is a topic you are unfamiliar with.

 

So, YES.  Without evidence or repeated new observations, then it SHOULD be ignored.

In fact I'd ask the reverse question.. OK, let's accept that this was a real event that happened exactly as described.

Now what?  It didn't hurt anyone.  It hasn't come back.  It didn't leave any evidence except one person's mental imprint. It doesn't contain anything that helps to identify whether it was ET, or some other sort of paranormal thing, or even some blinged-up terrestrial flying device.

Would you not agree that apart from creating a story that someone told, once long ago, that it had no effect on reality whatsoever?

And now, what exactly should we do about it, to ensure that next time it happens, it is properly evidenced?

I'll answer that one for you:

1. We should engage in a long term project to equip the worldwide community with recording devices, and keep improving both the coverage and quality of those devices.  (Oh look, we already did that ..... and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.)

2. We engage in a long term project to better surveill the skies!  Make astronomy equipment cheaper, higher quality, and much more capable.  (Oh look, we already did that and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.  Go visit any astronomy forum and see how much discussion there is about UFO's - pretty much ZERO.. except for identifications, which are much easier now thanks to things like Heavens-Above, Stellarium, FlightAware)

 

In summary, yes, there's lots of stuff up there that is (initially at least) unidentifiable, and some of it looks weird if you are not familiar with what is possible.  But 99.9% of it is identifiable, and the remaining 0.1% is explainable.   Aliens?  NO, not yet.

I have to copy and keep this one, damnit man, that was nail on, some thing i thought but could never word out and it applies not only to aliens/ufos but to ghosts and bigfoot too.

 

To step over a second,

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Have you never had a vivid / lucid dream that could easily be later remembered as a real event?

Is that common, I have one, I know its a dream but it memory sometimes it feels different more real.

[Golden Duck]

8 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

 

I did not want to post a link to a particular ufo sighting because, as I have explained above, it is witness reliability, and if they should be believed in the first instance, that is the subject of the thread. I have tried to show that different standards used to assess witness reports are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But seeing as you have asked so nicely  I will provide a witness statement that details an interesting account of a ufo sighting.

The witness in this case was Wing Commander Stan J. Hubbard RAF. 

Scroll down to FLYING SAUCERS OVER FARNBOROUGH in the link - 

Extract form Hubbard's account - 

"I had been away for three weeks out West and I had come back the previous day. I had flown a Fiesler Storch [WW2 German reconnaissance plane] back from as far west as you can go without getting your feet wet! The top speed is about 75 mph. It took me ages and ages to get back to Farnborough, but anyway I had written my report, a final report on three weeks’ work, and I had submitted it that morning and I was very pleased that it had been accepted and felt that I could get away for an early lunch. So I left the old Flying Control building and set off directly for the mess.  In those days there was no problem about walking straight to where you were going, there were no security fences, we just got a green flashing light from flying control and went straight across the runway to No. 1 Mess, which was my home in those days.

I had gone about 150 or 200 yards and this was one of those rare mornings. It was warm, there was no air movement, there was no aircraft noise, nothing flying, no aircraft engines being revved up on the ground, no traffic noise at all, it was dead quiet. So I was surprised to hear a very strange sound that was coming from somewhere behind me, and it impinged upon my consciousness. I was thinking about other things, but I stopped and I turned around to see what it could be. I then saw a very strange object way in the distance, I think towards Basingstoke.

I watched this thing and it was for all the world like the edge-on view of a discus, the sort of discus we used to throw at sports meetings…and it was rocking from side to side very slightly, probably 20-25 degrees either side, rhythmically rocking but maintaining a very straight approach. I watched it and it moved very quickly and passed overhead. And I tell you, that was something that has stuck in my mind very clearly, vividly, to this day. 

It was a light grey colour a bit like mother of pearl, but blurred. It was obviously reflecting light because as it rocked it looked like a pan lid as you rotate it, with segments of light rotating around. And I could see that around the edge as it went overhead I could see very clearly it was a different colour, it had a definite edge to it. And the whole of the edge was a mass of tiny crackling, sparkling lights. And associated with that, there was a real impact of very very strong ozone smell and it was for all the world like the sound you would get when you walk through the door into a big active power generation station with huge rotors turning with the smell of ozone and the crackling of commutators…

See more on the link - https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/flying-saucer-working-party/ 

It is only a witness statement with no evidence but do we ignore it or not?  

I'll just say that the smell of ozone by the seaside is actually dimethyl sulphide.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Which is what you often do as in avoiding Fravor's comments on Day by attacking the site which reported it.

#`1 - your BadUFO site attacked Fravor and never produced a QUOTE of Fravor saying any such thing. You pasted it as FACT.

And yes, I attack the site because they tried their hardest to portray Kevin Day as a bad guy and incompetent yet they never showed the goods, all they did was paraphrase *somebody* paraphrasing Fravor. That is hear-say hear-say information.  That's why I dig my heals into those schiesters.
In other words, they can't attack the material so they attack the messenger. Same old.

I listened to Fravor on a new Joe Rogan podcast. Not ONCE did Fravor ever have anything bad to say about Kevin Day or the USS Princeton  radar results as presented in the Go Fast vid. In fact, Fravor doubled down and talked about the UFOs that went from 80,000 ft to 20,000 and talked about it like it was fact. You should listen to that podcast to get it from the horses mouth, not BadUFO. You'll appreciate the difference.

The long and short its,  BadUFO is trying to misrepresent what Fravor said. That is clear. And I won't believe otherwise until I see Fravor quoted and in a respectable source.

 

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

I have to copy and keep this one, damnit man, that was nail on, some thing i thought but could never word out and it applies not only to aliens/ufos but to ghosts and bigfoot too.

 

To step over a second,

Is that common, I have one, I know its a dream but it memory sometimes it feels different more real.

I posted about my own best example once before - it still brings shivers to my spine.  The dream was in full 3D, fully realistic, I was completely in charge of my own actions, everything that happened around me was perfectly logical - there was literally nothing to suggest that it wasn't 100% real, and when I awoke... It took me quite a while to accept that I was now awake and that wasn't my 'reality'.  It was completely different to my 'normal' dreams (is there such a thing?), which have a certain subtle sense of unreality to them, such that when you awake, you are *not* confused about it being a dream.

When that dream happened, there was literally just one thing only that told me it was unreal after I awoke - namely that I don't, in real life, own a light plane or have my pilot's license..!   Had that *not* been part of the dream, I'm sure by now the entire content of what happened would be a real memory by now.

Basically it was me piloting a small aircraft, from going to the airport, getting clearance, taxiing, going for an extremely pleasant joyflight over a city I know well, and then a nice 3pt landing, parking it in a hangar and then getting into my car to drive home ... at which point I awoke.  Note that I have done a lot of flight simulations, and my childhood wish was to be a military pilot.. but I have color-blindness just bad enough to stop that from happening.

Anyway, I digress, but my point is that I don't trust my or anyone else's recollections as the Gospel, even if I know them as down to earth and honest.  (I'm not religious anyway..)

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

#`1 - your BadUFO site attacked Fravor and never produced a QUOTE of Fravor saying any such thing. You pasted it as FACT.

And yes, I attack the site because they tried their hardest to portray Kevin Day as a bad guy and incompetent yet they never showed the goods, all they did was paraphrase *somebody* paraphrasing Fravor. That is hear-say hear-say information.  That's why I dig my heals into those schiesters.
In other words, they can't attack the material so they attack the messenger. Same old.

I listened to Fravor on a new Joe Rogan podcast. Not ONCE did Fravor ever have anything bad to say about Kevin Day or the USS Princeton  radar results as presented in the Go Fast vid. In fact, Fravor doubled down and talked about the UFOs that went from 80,000 ft to 20,000 and talked about it like it was fact. You should listen to that podcast to get it from the horses mouth, not BadUFO. You'll appreciate the difference.

The long and short its,  BadUFO is trying to misrepresent what Fravor said. That is clear. And I won't believe otherwise until I see Fravor quoted and in a respectable source.

 

That's a lie. The web site did not attack Fravor. You really need to start posting truthful statements.

Here is another lie: "You pasted it as FACT." I quoted the website. So please stop telling lies.

The web site did not portray anything at all about Day. It was Fravor that did that. Agin you are purposely telling lies.

The website quoted Knapp. The website correctly stated what was stated by Fravor. Did you even bother to listen to Fravor's talk? No. All you did is attack the website.

The website was gracious about its portrayal of Fravor's statements. Fravor gave detailed statements about why no one should trust Day. Fravor discussed the radar and its display and what was known and unknown. From that he states that Day is an untrustable buffoon (my term).

Here is another lie. "they can't attack the material so they attack the messenger." That lie is just more of the blather than avoids what Fravor actually stated.

Did you actually listen to Fravor on Rogan's podcast? I doubt it. Would ou report events discussed there truthfully? I doubt it.

The long and short is that the badufo site was kind about Fravor's comments on Day. Had you actually bothered to listen to Fravor you would know that.

Fravor makes it abundantly clear in his presentation that Day is a liar and no amount of smearing of badufo by someone too close minded to listen to Fravor or that openly lies about what the Navy states should be trusted.

[L.A.T.1961]

15 hours ago, stereologist said:

So you think it is reasonable to detect the smell of ozone created far enough overhead that the altitude could not be determined? I think that is an odd part of the story.  I could not smell the ozone when standing below the large number of crackling lines coming south from the James Bay area project. The crackling sound was amazingly loud, but no odor. Remember that in this story the object is in motion whereas I was below stationary power lines that were continuously crackling.

 

 

I am saying that it is not possible to rate the witnesses ozone account using another, your own experiance, mechanism for producing ozone.  All it shows is to smell ozone it needs to be produced in enough quantity for the observer, at their location, to detect it.  I don't see why this should be controversial?

[L.A.T.1961]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

An easy one.  Yes, we ignore it *unless* there are multiple repeat observations, or there were independent corroborative statements.  Not 'after-I-read-about-it' copycat reports.

Have you never had a vivid / lucid dream that could easily be later remembered as a real event?  Never mis-remembered something, never had a desire for fame or just fifteen minutes of attention?  Never heard of someone going loopy?  Never had a relative that gradually embellished a tale that slowly changed into something unrelated to reality?  I could offer a whole pile more reasons, but you should get the picture..

Do you think that any of that is somehow different just because you are a pilot, or a cop, or whatever?  NO.

People tell stories, it's that simple, yet it could be for a myriad of reasons, and to them the memory may be 100% 'real'.  But if you think that memories and anecdotes are reliable, then this is a topic you are unfamiliar with.

 

So, YES.  Without evidence or repeated new observations, then it SHOULD be ignored.

In fact I'd ask the reverse question.. OK, let's accept that this was a real event that happened exactly as described.

Now what?  It didn't hurt anyone.  It hasn't come back.  It didn't leave any evidence except one person's mental imprint. It doesn't contain anything that helps to identify whether it was ET, or some other sort of paranormal thing, or even some blinged-up terrestrial flying device.

Would you not agree that apart from creating a story that someone told, once long ago, that it had no effect on reality whatsoever?

And now, what exactly should we do about it, to ensure that next time it happens, it is properly evidenced?

I'll answer that one for you:

1. We should engage in a long term project to equip the worldwide community with recording devices, and keep improving both the coverage and quality of those devices.  (Oh look, we already did that ..... and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.)

2. We engage in a long term project to better surveill the skies!  Make astronomy equipment cheaper, higher quality, and much more capable.  (Oh look, we already did that and guess what, no new similar sightings whatsoever.  Go visit any astronomy forum and see how much discussion there is about UFO's - pretty much ZERO.. except for identifications, which are much easier now thanks to things like Heavens-Above, Stellarium, FlightAware)

 

In summary, yes, there's lots of stuff up there that is (initially at least) unidentifiable, and some of it looks weird if you are not familiar with what is possible.  But 99.9% of it is identifiable, and the remaining 0.1% is explainable.   Aliens?  NO, not yet.

 

"Have you never had a vivid / lucid dream that could easily be later remembered as a real event?  Never mis-remembered something, never had a desire for fame or just fifteen minutes of attention?  Never heard of someone going loopy?  Never had a relative that gradually embellished a tale that slowly changed into something unrelated to reality?  I could offer a whole pile more reasons, but you should get the picture.."

I don't deny that what you mention above is all possible, but a witness statement could be filtered for these effects just as, I am sure, they are taken into consideration when police interview a witness who claims to have seen a crime. 

When it comes to the case I offered then all of the above would seem unlikely, this was also the conclusion of the Scientific investigation team sent to debrief the witness directly after the event. 

 

"People tell stories, it's that simple"

Yes they do and it is the job of anybody cross examining the witness to see, to the best of their ability's, if this is the case. As in all witness cases. But when it comes to the case I offered it was not the conclusion of the Scientific investigation team sent to debrief the witness directly after the event. 

 

"Now what?  It didn't hurt anyone.  It hasn't come back." 

This is not relevant to how we respond to a witness statement, which is a stand alone piece of testimony given, in this case, to a specialist investigation team. 

 

"And now, what exactly should we do about it, to ensure that next time it happens, it is properly evidenced?"

Well it is an interesting topic, but it moves on from how we rate different witness statements. 

 

"In summary, yes, there's lots of stuff up there that is (initially at least) unidentifiable, and some of it looks weird if you are not familiar with what is possible.  But 99.9% of it is identifiable, and the remaining 0.1% is explainable.   Aliens?  NO, not yet." 

Your above conclusions might be contested by some  and in all of my posts above I have not mentioned Aliens  

only the validity, or otherwise, of witness statements and I have posted a witness statement as an example. 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I am saying that it is not possible to rate the witnesses ozone account using another, your own experiance, mechanism for producing ozone.  All it shows is to smell ozone it needs to be produced in enough quantity for the observer, at their location, to detect it.  I don't see why this should be controversial?

Here's my take, a person tells me they were taking out the trash and walking down the sidewalk was a small dog they never saw before, the dog ignored them and kept walking.

So not much to go on right? But so far I believe them, then they say that dog had the softest fur, I would ask, how do you know did you pet it? If yes then i might keep believing them, but would question why leave out the part about petting the dog,

  if they start down a story path like the dog could run over 100mph and all i have is they say so, well we know dogs cant do that so I'm done there, leaving out parts, embellishments extrodarnary claims with no evidence, I'm not in this for stories.

For me the more outlandish the claim the more i need to keep buying it and at somqe point or with nothing but a story im done,

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

The web site did not portray anything at all about Day. It was Fravor that did that. 

 

Fravor was never quoted and you - like BadUFO, make accusations about Fravor that you cannot support.

Show Fravor being quoted before you start attributing these statements made by BadUFO to Fravor.

Anyone can clearly see you are taking BadUFO's characterization of Fravor based on hear-say evidence and acting like it is fact attributable to Fravor.

Cheat much?

Edited October 18, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I am saying that it is not possible to rate the witnesses ozone account using another, your own experiance, mechanism for producing ozone.  All it shows is to smell ozone it needs to be produced in enough quantity for the observer, at their location, to detect it.  I don't see why this should be controversial?

Because the circumstances were similar except that I was much closer to the source which was not in motion.

I don't see why you you think that is controversial.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Fravor was never quoted and you - like BadUFO, make accusations about Fravor that you cannot support.

Show Fravor being quoted before you start attributing these statements made by BadUFO to Fravor.

Anyone can clearly see you are taking BadUFO's characterization of Fravor based on hear-say evidence and acting like it is fact attributable to Fravor.

Cheat much?

You did not follow up on Fravor's comment. So what? I did and I heard that Fravor specifically did state what Knapp stated in his quote.

All you did was attack the the site. You have never anything but attack the messenger.

You are free to listen to Fravor's talk. If you choose not to as you have chosen not to all along then so be it.

I don't expect much from those with a close minded approach that spend their time purposely misrepresenting what was stated.

Fravor stated that Day is not to be trusted and is spouting fiction is his presentation to a UFO convention.

[Vaz]

A lovely short clip on The Todmorden UFO in 1980

15 hours ago, stereologist said:

You did not follow up on Fravor's comment. So what? I did and I heard that Fravor specifically did state what Knapp stated in his quote.

All you did was attack the the site. You have never anything but attack the messenger.

You are free to listen to Fravor's talk. If you choose not to as you have chosen not to all along then so be it.

I don't expect much from those with a close minded approach that spend their time purposely misrepresenting what was stated.

Fravor stated that Day is not to be trusted and is spouting fiction is his presentation to a UFO convention.

You have not provided any believable evidence against the case.  Just skeptical unqualified opinion.  If you have anything please post 

[Vaz]

A lovely clip on the Todmorden UFO of 1980.

The clip contains direct testimony from witnesses Leonard Smith (School Caretaker) and Police Officer John Porter.  All three accounts describe the craft from different locations on the same date.  There were apparently other police witnesses with Porter.

The incident took a bad toll on Godfrey's health and career.  Not an unsual consequence of a UFO experience.  It has happened to others.  

 

There are theories about 'earth lights', road sweepers, and other nonsense.  *snip*

PC Stephen Howarth and PC Chris Fernhead also testified to seeing something similar earlier that year:


 

http://www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk/3.html

Same object but different time? 

And finaly the same date as Godfrey's sighting:

Edited October 19, 2019 by Saru
Removed flamebaiting

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

6 hours ago, Vaz said:

 

You have not provided any believable evidence against the case.  Just skeptical unqualified opinion.  If you have anything please post 

Exactly, Vaz. Wild and unsubstantiated claims by true skeptics.

I first asked, why would pilot Fravor of the USS Nimitz, who encountered the tic tac UFO and who knows little of the spy1 radar system on the USS Princeton, be doubting the Princeton's radar results? It was, after all, the USS Princeton that directed Fravor to that tic tac UFO. Makes no sense! And all the while, BadUFO never once quoted Fravor himself. They used nothing more than hear-say information and characterizations of what Fravor said to bolster their wild claims.
 

Looking further at the facts, regardless of what Fravor *may* have said, the US Navy is bigger than he. The Navy says that the three TTSA videos are authentic and UAPs real, therefor, what the radarman Kevin Day of the USS Princeton reported is quite real. So why the skeptic even tries to drive this dubious point home of Fravor throwing Day under the bus is not even relevant. Kevin Day's radar results are supported by the US Navy. PERIOD.
 

Also, as was pointed out in the Joe Rogan podcast, Fravor said that the radar on the USS Nimitz also picked up the same UFOs that the Princeton did, backing Kevin Day's radar findings and clearly demonstrating that Fravor does not doubt radarman Kevin Day. This fact also eliminates the wild and unsubstantiated claims of the skeptic that the radarmen of the USS Princeton were unable to properly read their new spy1 radar, shedding real doubt on the believability of BadUFO. They are proven unreliable.
 

Lastly, pilot Fravor on the Rogan podcast retold the event where the UFOs dropped from 80,000 feet down to 20,000, backing up the claim of radarman Kevin Day. Fravor never once cast any shadows of doubt on that account or of Kevin Day.
 

In the end, the website BadUFO.com will be viewed as a website that is on par with the flat earth websites, and I am done chasing home this futile point. It's up to the claimant to support evidence presented, not me to disprove it.

Case closed.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 hours ago, Vaz said:

A lovely clip on the Todmorden UFO of 1980.

The clip contains direct testimony from witnesses Leonard Smith (School Caretaker) and Police Officer John Porter.  All three accounts describe the craft from different locations on the same date.  There were apparently other police witnesses with Porter.

The incident took a bad toll on Godfrey's health and career.  Not an unsual consequence of a UFO experience.  It has happened to others.  

 

There are theories about 'earth lights', road sweepers, and other nonsense.  *snip*

PC Stephen Howarth and PC Chris Fernhead also testified to seeing something similar earlier that year:


 

http://www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk/3.html

Same object but different time? 

And finaly the same date as Godfrey's sighting:

 

Good UFO story, Vaz. And this event is one that is truly an Unexplained Mystery, as authorities have to this day not figured out the event.

I speak specifically of the body - a dead body, no less, being found on top of a coal pile that was not there just hours before and yet the body was dead for some time longer than that. So, somebody had to have placed the dead body on top of the coal pile. Yet, the ground was muddy and no footprints were found at the scene. All the while, a UFO was seen by witnesses. Hmmm...

Well, although we do not have proof, we do have a viable suspect, anyway. 

[stereologist]

18 hours ago, Vaz said:

A lovely short clip on The Todmorden UFO in 1980

You have not provided any believable evidence against the case.  Just skeptical unqualified opinion.  If you have anything please post 

There is no reason to provide evidence against. It is up to the supporters to provide evidence to support.

So far nothing but bad stories and stories are worthless without supporting evidence.

Provide support or fail

[stereologist]

More stories and more stories without evidence is all that supporters blather out.

What is needed is evidence to support  case.

Some people who know basically nothing think that stories stand until discredited. That's just reveling in being gullible.

That's what con men hope for. They want to find the sort of foolish person that believes in stories no matter how poor they are.

The list of people relying on the gullible  is lengthy:

• Cash and Landrum
• Kevin Day
• The Hills
• Bernie Madoff
• Maussan
• Greer
• etc.

Stories are told but the evidence does not exist. The stories often begin to fall apart to those that apply critical thinking. The people that want to be fooled simply take the close minded approach of believing the stories without question.

The funny part of alien abductions is that they simply mirror the technological level of the times and sometimes are well behind that.