Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

 

[Zero]

This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up. [b(]

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up.

Agreed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

My position is popular with virtually no one; which tells me that I'm probably close. Really I do have a few kindred spirits. Recently I have corresponded quite a bit with a trial lawyer who feels much the same as I do. Also, Allen J. Hynek - the father of modern Ufology, and before that the original govenment sponsored UFO debunker - died in a state of uncertainty about the whole subject. He had no doubt that they exist, but what UFOs are remained a mystery to Hynek after nearly 50 years of research. So in fact some percentage of the most serious researchers, and certainly the grand daddy of them all do [did] feel uncertain about the proper explanation. Unfortunately, these people get little attention.

Most debunkers don't realize this.

EDIT: Also, my position is clear. I am convinced that something real, rare, unknown, and highly energetic does fly around the skies; interfere with aircraft, burn people, leave physical evidence upon touchdown [land], that sometimes show up on RADAR, and that are often interpreted as being alien spacecraft . They also appear to cause electrical systems to fail in unusual ways, and they act in a manner that is often interpreted as being controlled by some intelligence.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood.

Well said.

How about it Ivan?

And, just to be boringly repetitious, "... explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study"

Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful. Those of us who wish to view the source can always do so, and will also surely write back if they find your summary has significant shortcomings.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful.

This part would still be a problem for me because, as was demonstrated in the case of the Hoover note, being able to see the actual note turned out to be the key to unlocking its lack of signifigance.

It was a lot of trouble to figure out a way to put this document in a place I could get to it, as it turned out, which is why I suggested Ivan select one really convincing case and do some planning and work to put the info where it's easy to get to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.

Like any subject, one must be smart about their sources. Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens. It takes quite a bit of work to sort through the information and get a reasonable picture of what goes on. I hear almost no references to any of the information that interests me; only the obvious boloney that most serious investigators also dismiss. Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

Also, we don't assume that the people standing in line for two weeks to see Star Wars are representive of movie-goers; nor should we look to a bunch of people howling at the moon as representing the UFO crowd. There was recently a big UFO convention in Vegas. As I'm told, of the 500 people [or so] that attended, one idiot shows up with antennas on his head. Guess where all the news cameras were pointing?

People like this really have nothing to do with the subject any more than skin heads represent the republican party, or that tree hugging dope smokers represent the democrats.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have refrained from posting a summary of the event since there are so many critical details. I guess in all fairness to Zooby I should. I will convey the details of the report as it is written.

What we have is an intelligence report to the DIA [ Defense Intelligence Agency] from a DAO [Defense Agency Officer], and distributed to the CIA, NSA, White house, CMC, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and a number of other agencies. The report describes events over Tehran, Iran, on Sept 19th, 1976. The credibility of the report is listed as high, with high ranking witnesses, RADAR confirmation, effects on the crews night vision [due to the brilliance of the object], and onboard electronics were affected.

The command center at [Iranian] Shamrokhi AFB – then an ally of the US hence our presence in the area – received a number of calls from citizens reporting unusual lights and objects over the city. From the command center, the officer in charge could see a bright light near the area reported. After it was confirmed that no helicopters were in the air, command scrambled an F-4 to investigate at about 12:30 AM. The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away. On approach and when at 25 NM [Nautical Miles] from the UFO, the plane lost all communication and instrumentation. When the plane turned away, [specifically the statement is made] apparently when the F-4 was no longer a threat, the electronics returned to normal. The first plane returned to base. Another F-4 was dispatched for intercept at 12:40 AM. As the “backseater” with RADAR then approached the object and obtained a lock at 27NM, the UFO began to move away so as to pace the F-4 and maintain a constant distance of 25 NM. . This motion was confirmed on RADAR.

The object yielded the same RADAR return as a 707 tanker. The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once. As the chase ensues to the south of Tehran, another bright object about 1/3 the size of the original came out of the object heading directly towards the F-4. The pilot attempted to fire and AIM missile, but at that exact moment his weapons and communications systems failed. The plane took evasive actions to avoid collision with the smaller orb which then followed the F-4 in the evasive dive at about 3-4 NM, and then cut across the inside chord of the flight path for a “perfect rejoin” with the main object.

Next, the crew regains their electronics and then observes another bright object come out of the other side of the original and head straight down at high speed. An explosion was expected, but the object slowed to a gentle landing and then cast a bright light over a 2-3 km area. After circling the landing zone a couple of time, the planes attempted to return to base. They lost communications every time the plane heading approached 150 degrees [presumably the direction of the UFO wrt their heading to base]. Another civil airliner on approach lost communications at this time as well. On final approach, the F-4 crew observed a cylindrical object in flight – about the size of a T-bird – at about 10 miles, and with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. This was not detected on RADAR, but the object was visually confirmed by the tower.

The next day the landing area was inspected by helicopter. A very noticeable beeper sound was heard. [presumably on their radio, this is not indicated] They landed and interviewed some people living near the landing area. The locals reported a very loud noise and a bright light like lightning the night before. The area was being checked for radiation. This information was obtained through a sub-source and the pilot of the second F4

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a place to start: can someone figure out in lumens how bright it would have to have been to be visible 70 miles away?

 

[(Q)]

Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens.

This is of course farthest from the truth. Most believers know little of the facts behind interstellar travel aside from their TV nighttime soap operas.

Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

From a believer’s point of view, any argument that begins to bring science to the forefront is tiresome. It’s not possible to retain a belief system with facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure how to do that one Zooby...at least not off the top of my head. Maybe someone will know a shortcut.

Also, I should note that the report also indicates that this was confirmed by other sources.

In my experience we find most of the major components of the typical [credible] UFO here.

Obviously we find high strangeness.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
The object could split and then rejoin again
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

These types of observations are common in the best cases. One thing that we don't see here is any evidence of fantastic flight capabilities. Accelerations in excess of 20Gs, and speeds in excess of 4000 mph are also seen in some cases that resemble this one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Listing its apparent characteristics is a good idea.
Obviously we find high strangeness.

"High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. Uninformative. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes

Sounds right.

The object could split and then rejoin again

Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

Yes.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

Seemingly inexplicable behavior and/or characteristics.

Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

Point taken.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics. [/B]

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Seemingly inexplicable behavior.

In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...

We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII. Now, the pilot of the F-4 describes the phenomenon as a brighly lit object. Aside from the retangular lights, he describes no structure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.

Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.

We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII.

Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.(Aside to judge) Your honor, I would ask that the defences' remarks concerning other cases not under consideration here be stricken from the record. He is trying to prejudice the jury.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.

Ok, in that case I don't think it's useful to describe this crafts characteristics. Describing what was reported is sufficient. The "high strangeness" is gratuitous editorializing.

You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.

A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.

I understand your objection...more later.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Originally posted by radagast
I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently referring to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?

I don't see this as being of value. We could probably see a flashlight at 70 miles under the right conditions. One significant measure of the energy is the claimed inteference with weapons systems at 3-4 NM minimum, and communications at up to 25 NM. This requires a lot of energy. I have no idea how to calculate the amount...especially when it involves weapons systems. Since this happened in a metal box - a faraday cage - this really takes a lot of energy. I don't know what else we can say about this aspect of the event.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently referring to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.

The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.

Edit: This happens because we can't explain what people claim they saw, or what wouild seem to be the facts.

Edit: It doesn't matter what they think they saw; only what they saw.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.

Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?

Sorry, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I will have to look at my post again. What I intended is restated in my last post. Somehow you did get the wrong idea.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.

Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.

As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...

Really and truly, that's not what I was saying. Scouts honor. Honest injun. [It's OK, I'm part injun]

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, here's my take on it at this point.

I went back and reread the description of the multicolored flashing rectangular formation of lights, and observe later where they say the size of it was impossible to estimate because of the brilliance: you couldn't make out edges or dimensions.

What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII that were installed around the Panama Canal by the US military to prevent German bombers from being able to see to aim their bombs at the canal locks. These devices were actually invented by a magician who was handy with mirrors. The show on the History channel that talked about this said something to the effect that the military has not to this day released the exact design of these devices. (The show was about all the various camoflage and deception techniques we used in WWII: divisions of rubber inflatable tanks, dummies with parachutes dropped to mislead about where we were actually invading)

So not being able to make out the dimensions of this craft because of the brilliance of the light it was throwing off makes me wonder if that was the point of throwing off this light to begin with: to obscure details that might make the workings of the other effects more clear. Were these lights obscuring conventional helicopter type rotors? Were they obscuring the means by which the secondary craft (smaller helicopters) were attached to the first?

So, let's say this is some military experimental craft, either US or Soviet. Either possibility would generate the same routing of info in high US government circles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII.

Yes, and it always possible that we will yet see a military technology to explain this event. However as time goes on this becomes less and less likely. Also, the fact is, and I think most people would agree, as far as we know in 1976 neither we nor anyone else had a technology that could account for this report. Also, if this technology existed, this report should not be available. This would be highly classified.

Note that no craft was ever seen [except for the cylinder but that's another issue].
No propulsion system is observed.
The first object paced an F-4 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F-4 undergoing evasive maneuvers.

Edit: I had said F-14s here, they were F4's.

I don't see a mechanical solution at this point. Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that no craft was ever seen No propulsion system is observed.

This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.

The first object paced an F14 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F14 undergoing evasive maneuvers.

I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.

Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.

I don't follow your logic here at all. Please explain, in tiny little steps.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Here's a place to start...

Actually, where I would start is far more basic. I don't accept the validity of the report itself. Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo.html article, not written by the NSA, but in their database, it says that

...all these agencies agreed that the "top brass" mentioned in the distribution list were routinely informed of every item of interest which comes out of the sensitive Middle East area.

It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.

I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.

The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"

It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.

Speaking for myself, the fact the military termed it a UFO simply means they couldn't identify it. Nothing more.

I have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.

Without knowing what each person who saw the report said in response not much more can be said about the fact it was circulated than that there was, at least, some wonder in high circles if it had any signifigance

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.

I realize this...

I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.

Well, really you keep eluding to [for simplicity] the Secret Super-technology hypothesis [SSH ]. In order to account for this report by means of technology [the human kind], it seems that we must assume the existence of a super technology that has existed at least [in this instance] since 1976. To this day there is no technology known that could account for the report. The speed exhibited, the jamming of onboard weapons systems, and especially the separation and rejoining, these elements of the story seem to rule out any technology of the day; then or now. At that time, the only things known [in Jane’s Book of Planes] that could pace or evade an F4 in full pursuit was another F4 or later model [I’m not sure what the latest generation was in 1976], a Russian Mig, a few spy planes, and missiles.

Next, there are a few things about the source of these documents [more docs to come] worth knowing. These are directly from government achieves. At some time this was filed away with perhaps millions of other classified documents. Presumably in 1982 - the time of the declassification of this document - someone submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for either this document specifically, or some or all documents relating to this event. At that time a review of the doc was made for issues of national security. As I understand this, given that certain criteria are met, the government must release the doc upon request, however it can black out any or all of the information as required to protect national security interests. Here is an example of a doc that has been significantly blacked out.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo13.pdf

What we see is a 2 page document without any context [this is from the NSA files, that’s all we know]. At least half of the document is blacked out. We see only sporadic text – going line by line here - The header, subject, date, and other multiple lines of text are blacked out. 20 lines of black ink in total…so far. In what follows, each line represents a full line of text on the document.

blacked out [BO] unidentified flying objects.
(UFO) on BO
BO aware of
various unidentified objects in BO
BO
BO
Unidentified silent light moving BO
BO
BO the light was a satellite not an aircraft BO
Unidentified light BO
The light was identified as at least one aircraft
BO
[This continues until the next page which has]
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO it was a cargo jet
ADMIN
BO
BO
BO

So we see what happens when we have a matter of national security involved. We can demand the document, but Uncle Sam can use all of the black ink he wants. It is very common find documents with up to 75% of the text blacked out.

In the Iran case we find intricate details of a classic UFO encounter. If the government was really trying to hide information about UFOs, or if this was considered to be a technology, we would not be reading the report. There is one exception to this statement I will mention in a minute. Another example of how a government reacts to sensitive information is found in events in the X-Soviet. Russian military tests invoked a rash of UFOs sightings. Some serious people got interested and began cataloguing and distributing the information; including photographs. When the Soviet government realized that sensitive details of military tests were being broadcasts around the world as UFO incidents, they realized that this information could be useful to the enemy. So guess what, a whole bunch of UFO information was classified. The reason for the classification is obvious. The interpretation of this action by Ufologist was understandably misguided; they saw this as part of a UFO conspiracy action.

Whatever is blacked out in this example documents is or was considered sensitive information. Clearly the Iran UFO is not considered a sensitive subject. This agrees with the government’s public position that whatever they are, and they don’t deny that UFOs exist; UFOs are not considered a matter of national security interest.

From a military fact sheet:

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

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

With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.

Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force. Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defense budgets, it is unlikely the Air Force would become involved in such a costly project in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in "Encyclopedia of Associations," published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.

http://www.af.mil/search/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=188&page=1

This next document also makes clear that officially, UFOs are not a matter of national security.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/usaf_f1.pdf

Going all the way back to WWII, classified government documents have accumulated to the point of daunting proportions. I am pretty sure that the last count revealed about one billion documents that must be reviewed for sensitive information before release. All of this classification leads many to believe that the government is hiding information. The real problem might simply be a matter of scale.

This all lends strongly I think to my position that the events in Iran do not represent a technology.

This does ignore the possibility that the government conspires to perpetuate the UFO myth in order to mask secret super-technology. Perhaps this document was planted or allowed to be released for this purpose. But for now, I would like to avoid all conspiracy theories. We can take those on later; one at a time.

As for Iran, consider the following:
Again, no craft is seen.

Proximity to the phenomenon, within 25 NM it seems, can interfere with avionics systems, and at some lesser range, weapons systems. This and the intense light imply highly energetic EM emissions. This is consistent with other phenomenon in nature- lighting for one.

When in pursuit, and when the second object came out of the first “right at the F4”, consider that the F4 is in the debris trail [so to speak] of the main object. In other words, did the second object come right at the F4, or was the F4 heading straight for the second object? When the jet took evasive maneuvers and went into a dive, was the second object chasing the jet or simply falling? Did the two objects really rejoin, or did one simply go poof or disappear somehow? Did the weapons fail exactly when he went to fire, or about when he went to fire? Could the second object coming out of the first represent an energetic event that caused the weapons failure? Zooby, I think you’ll like this one: Could the high EM affect the pilot mentally; perhaps in judgment or perspective? Also, and later this will become significant to my position, if natural, could a phenomenon like this cause hallucinations that account for many accompanying ET experiences? I will try to make this argument as we go. My suggestion that this is natural is not comfortable, but as you may later agree, it’s the only escape from ET that I can see.

EDIT: Could ball lighting or something similar be much more interesting that we ever realized?

Edit: I was working late and remembered one more thought on this: The object was said to start retreating from the F4 just after being hit by the plane's RADAR. Could this object have been reacting to the energy of the RADAR; literally being pushed along by the momentum of the RADAR photons? If we see the object on RADAR, then we are imparting a momentum to that object just by looking. Just some more speculation on my part...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

RAF Woodbridge / Bentwaters AFB: Rendlesham Forest

This is another case that we should discuss. I am posting this now because on friday this week, i.e. Dec 12th, the Sci Fi channel will be airing an investigation into this event at 9:00 PM. This is a very, very significant event.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

We can discuss this case more later. Be sure to watch this if you're interested; this should be very interesting.


Edit: Here are the rest of the links from the Napster:
Rendlesham Forest: 1980
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart1.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart2.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart3.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart4.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart5.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa030998.htm

http://www.rendlesham.com/

http://www.flyingsaucery.com/Rendlesham/

NEW BBC REPORT: "UFO lights were 'a prank'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm
**A full review of the several incidents that constitute this case seem to evade explanation by this report. Note that at least three security officers reported the direct observation of a craft: "A triangular shaped object was seen on the forest floor". More information will be posted as it becomes available.***

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"

Again, I'd like to hear a clarification of this by someone who would know (NSA or military). If the criteria was simply that (for example) every contact not specifically identified as benign gets reported in this way, then there is nothing special at all implied by the circulation of this one.

My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.