• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rramjet

Unregistered
R
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
3,046
I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.

Some might argue I have posted “too many” cases, others, “too few”. I have chosen the reports and cases for two reasons: First, because they represent the intriguing, compelling research and testimony of people from all walks of life, from housewives to astronauts, from farmers to scientists, from police officers to military pilots… and from pre-history to the present; and second, because they are some of the most well researched cases on record.

There are of course millions of UFO reports on record, so selecting was not an easy task, but I hope you will find them at least interesting.

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.

My proposal is to discuss the cases in turn, beginning with the “Aliens Throughout History” links and work through the list and see what eventuates.

For example I find it intriguing that skeptics invariably imply that the UFO phenomenon is a relatively recent arrival into public consciousness, often citing Kenneth Arnold’s experience as “kicking off” the UFO “craze” and then referencing Hollywood and the media as ultimately influential in driving the common conception of UFOs and aliens and thus directly influencing what is reported. Nothing could be further from the truth. I give you then, to kick proceedings off, “UFOs Throughout Early History”! (that is...ahem...after the preceding Reports and Committees section... :) I provide that section incidentally as a "ready reference" so people can easily check what the "official" research says about some cases)

Enjoy, Discuss, debate.
Here is the evidence.
What do YOU make of it?

Research Reports and Committees

1. Project Sign (1948)
1.1 Estimate of the Situation
(http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)

2. Project Grudge (1948 to 1952)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grudge)

3. The Robertson Panel (14-17 Jan 1953)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)

4. Project Blue Book (1952 to 30 Jan 1970)
4.1 The Blue Book Unknowns
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)
4.2 The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

5. The O’Brien Committee (1996)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/obrien.htm)

6. The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
6.1. General Articles and Documents on Condon Report
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
6.2 Project Coordinator Low’s Infamous “Trick Memo”
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_condonreport04.htm)

7. The 1968 US Congressional Hearings (plus various other government studies)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/governmentstudies.htm)

8. GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France) (1997 – present)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)

9. The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997)
9.1 Report (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc535.htm)
9.2 Related Documents (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm)

10. COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

11. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm)

UFO case studies

UFOs Throughout Early History
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc154.htm)
(http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_bc)
(http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_ad)

The Great Airships (1896 - 1897)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Airships.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship)

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/battleoflosangeles.html)

WWII Foo Fighters (1943 - 1945)
(http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/histfoo1.htm)

Swedish Ghost rockets (1946)
(http://www.project1947.com/fig/1946a.htm)

Kenneth Arnold UFO Sighting (24 Jun 1947)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case511.htm)

Roswell (8 Jul 1947): (Dr.) Jesse Marcel Jr.
(http://www.cufos.org/marcelWeb.pdf)
(http://www.roswellproof.com/Marcel_Jr.html)

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)

Great Falls, Montana UFO film (15 Aug 1950)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/greatfalls.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/montana50.htm#events)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

Flatwoods Monster UFO Event (12 Sep 1952)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case535.htm)
(http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfflatwoods.html)

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

The Lakenheath Military Encounter (13 - 14 Aug 1956)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bentwaters1956.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm)

Astronaut Gordon Cooper/UFO landing at Edwards AFB (1957)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case357.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gordoncooperufos.html)

The RB-47 UFO Encounter (17 Jul 1957)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm)

The Antonio Villas Boas Abduction (5 Oct 1957)
(http://www.interstellar-travel.com/library/humanoids/2-AVB.cfm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/boastotalabduction.html)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)

Betty and Barney Hill (19 Sep 1961)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Hill.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

Big Sur - Vandenberg Minuteman Missile/UFO Incident (Sep 1964)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bigsur.html)

The Kecksburg UFO Crash (9 Dec 1965)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kecksburg.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Kecksburg.htm)

Mothman - Point Pleasant, West Virginia (12 Nov 1966 - 15 Dec 1967)
(http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/archives/cryptozoology/mothman.html)

The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident (16 Mar 1967)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/malmstrom67dir.htm)

Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction (3 Dec 1967)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case659.htm)

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

The Pascagoula, Mississippi/Hickson/Parker Abduction (10 Oct 1973)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pascagoula.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/pascagoula.htm)

The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)

Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters UFO Incident (25 – 27 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm)
The Halt Tape (http://www.ufologie.net/htm/rendlestape.htm)

The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)

JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm)

Belgian UFO Sightings (1989 - 1990)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)

Russian UFO Crash (28 Aug 1991)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Russia.html)

The Cosford Incident (30-31 Mar 1993)
(http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)

The American West Flight 564 UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

UFO/Airplane Near Miss, Manchester Airport, UK (6 Jan 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/manchester1995.html)

STS-75: The Tether Incident (25 Feb 1997)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470704/pg1)

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)

The Phoenix Lights (13 - 14 Mar 1997)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/phoenixlights.html)
(http://www.rense.com/general40/phoenix.htm)

Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) (5 Jan 2000)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case277.htm)

The Cempeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/mexico/mexico.dwt)
(http://www.csicop.org/si/show/campeche_mexico_infrared_ufo_video)

UFO RADAR cases
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm)

UFO Photography
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html)

Physical Evidence
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm)

UFO Crashes and Retrievals
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/UFOcrashes.htm)

UFOs and Astronauts
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Astronauts.htm)
(http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/apollo.htm)
(http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc504.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc526.htm)
 
some of those reports are extremely dubious
my favourite was this one
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1898.htm
The strangest thing was the unknown inscription in an unknown
language found inside the cabin. After deciphering the language
it was determined to have been ancient Sanskrit - or the ancient
Indian language.

Later speculation was that the object was some kind of ancient
'Vimana' described in ancient Indian manuscripts like the
'Vimanika Shastra', etc.
Click to expand...
the Vimanika Shastra is not ancient, it was channelled in the 20th century
A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircrafts described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaimanika_Shastra
you said you were going to post evidence for Aliens and UFOs, what is the point of posting this crapola that anyone whos interested can find with google ?
besides with this quality of evidence all youve proved is that you have no objectivity at all
better luck next time
:D
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
some of those reports are extremely dubious
my favourite was this one
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1898.htm
Click to expand...

Yeah, strange stuff huh? :)
Nobody said any of this would be immediately "believable", in fact so much of it is so unbelievable that many people don't even bother to post things like I just did because they fear ridicule for doing so - and as a corollary, they won't talk about their own experiences because of the same fear.

I am interested though Marduk, on your thoughts surrounding the very first reference(s) on the UFOs in history?
 
the Brinsley Le Poer Trench book or Ezekiels vision ?
none of the other claims made in the link can be substantiated and the other two authors on the whole are not good sources Wilkins relying on ancient texts which have been channelled in the same way that the Vimanika Shastra was and Vallee despite being credited as the most thorough researcher of the period later destroyed his credibility by producing :-
"Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects",
which were
1.unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
2.the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
3.the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
4.the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
5.the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.

so you have two options,
1. Brinsley Le Poer Trench
2. Ezekiel

I'm hoping you don't want an analysis of the spurious claims for the cherry picked examples included in Matthew Hurleys website !!
:D
 
The Phoenix Lights has been long debunked as a set of parachute flares dropped during an Air Force exercise.
 
Seismosaurus said:
The Phoenix Lights has been long debunked as a set of parachute flares dropped during an Air Force exercise.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story...

I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope? :(

Yes, Marduk...getting back to you ASAP...
 
Rramjet said:
(chuckling in genuine amusement) That's a good one! I like it... very clever.
Click to expand...
Well seriously, there are hundreds - thousands - probably millions of stories of UFOs, but not one piece of solid, verifiable evidence.

Bring me something concrete and I'll start believing that there's something to it. Until then, anyone can tell stories.
 
Marduk said:
(...)

so you have two options,
1. Brinsley Le Poer Trench
2. Ezekiel

I'm hoping you don't want an analysis of the spurious claims for the cherry picked examples included in Matthew Hurleys website !!
:D
Click to expand...

Actually, these reports are widely available from other sources (even Ezekiel) so you trying to discredit the authors who merely compiled the reports does not wash with me. I am interested in the CONTENT of the reports, not in whoever was the latest scientist, idiot, wako or genuine guy to compile them.

No, I don't need an analysis, I just wanted your general impressions...you have provided that in reference to some "cherry picked" examples...perhaps I should be satisfied with that. At least you have gone to the site and had a look before commenting ( I assume) ...and that I do commend you for...
 
arthwollipot said:
Well seriously, there are hundreds - thousands - probably millions of stories of UFOs, but not one piece of solid, verifiable evidence.

Bring me something concrete and I'll start believing that there's something to it. Until then, anyone can tell stories.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could provide me your insights on the physical trace cases? There is a link to one site that will give you a jumping in point.

I think that there DOES exist physical evidence and that evidence has been outlined (in for example) the site listed - but of course there are other sites AND there are also sites I have NOT referenced that claim to have "bits" of UFO that can be (and sometimes have been) analysed... but I did not include links to those sites because...well... I am simply NOT convinced of the veracity of those claims.
 
Rramjet said:
Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story...

I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope? :(

Yes, Marduk...getting back to you ASAP...
Click to expand...

No one is assuming anything about the Phoenix lights. What they actually were, both sets, is pretty well documented, and it wasn't spacecraft...

Also, it was just covered pretty extensively in a thread here...
 
LTC8K6 said:
No one is assuming anything about the Phoenix lights. What they actually were, both sets, is pretty well documented, and it wasn't spacecraft...

Also, it was just covered pretty extensively in a thread here...
Click to expand...

"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.
 
Rramjet said:
"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.
Click to expand...

"Phoenix lights" would not be referring to any daylight aircraft, as you well know.
 
Well none of this actually confirms the alien hypothesis does it.

It doesn't matter if you attempt to make the end hypothesis vague by moving from ET to ET/Inter-dimensional beings/... . When the evidence is insufficient the correct position is always I don't know. This is: "I don't know, therefore I know it is beyond our understand of reality". Science hasn't stopped learning, questions unanswerable now, maybe be explainable by natural phenomena tomorrow. Its still an argument from ignorance I'm afraid.
 
Rramjet said:
I posted the links in the hope that inquiring minds might at least read about (at least) one case in entirely before passing judgement ...perhaps that was a forlorn hope? :(
Click to expand...

Rramjet, although I might not agree with you on your conclusions (haven't studied enough yet to say anything) I want to express my respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is'. You have provided extensive back up for, if nothing else, at least your belief.

Alas, I fear you are investing too much in this. I also had a moment on this forum believing it would be a great place to bring forth what I felt as a base for some beliefs I held, and get a fair evaluation of them. Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.

I really wouldn't wish this happens to you as well (at least Marduk threw a pebble...maybe that's better than complete knee-jerk rejection...). So I'd ask you to kindly re-post a single link which you feel provides the most convincing case. At least I'd be interested to give it a look and express my opinion.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Tapio said:
Rramjet, although I might not agree with you on your conclusions (haven't studied enough yet to say anything) I want to express my respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is'. You have provided extensive back up for, if nothing else, at least your belief.

Alas, I fear you are investing too much in this. I also had a moment on this forum believing it would be a great place to bring forth what I felt as a base for some beliefs I held, and get a fair evaluation of them. Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.

I really wouldn't wish this happens to you as well (at least Marduk threw a pebble...maybe that's better than complete knee-jerk rejection...). So I'd ask you to kindly re-post a single link which you feel provides the most convincing case. At least I'd be interested to give it a look and express my opinion.

Thanks!
Click to expand...


Hi Tapio -thank you.

Ah yes... "THE" most convincing case... But you see, That is the problem entirely. It is the "weight of evidence" that does it. Just as in any other broader scientific endeavour, we cannot rely on a single instance to prove the hypothesis - we must have a more. It is actually a problem of epistemology - how do we know what we know?

A single case? Well the Rogue River case is as good as any I guess ((http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html) - but that is only because it is topical at this moment in this forum - tommorow I might point someone else to a different case.

And have you seen my reply to you on this in the other thread ...about the object moving off at "jet plane" speeds, and about how the Air Force investigated this case entirely on its own recognisance and if "blimp" was the answer - even speculatively, THEY would have been the very FIRST to propose that as an explanation ...no Tapio ...I believe you are a fair minded, keen student of knowledge... but students must also study carefully the evidence as presented to them - first hand - and not take so easily a second-hand opinion that might seem to confirm a belief already forming. So, that is as good a case as any...

But remember also the big picture. Too often we focus in on the minutia of things, only to miss the grander schema available to us. It is what the WHOLE is telling us. Taken together all these reports and research outcomes add up, until we can no longer ignore what the message is. That SOMETHING is going on here that cannot be dismissed so easily as some might suggest.
 
Tapio said:
Surprisingly to me (as a newbie) not one of those members commenting was keen on actually addressing a single point I brought up.
Click to expand...

I might have had a significant look through all of this had he not already stated that he finds no logical link between the evidence and aliens, and we cannot draw any definitive conclusions the evidence. :)

He's posting evidence he's already said doesn't prove his hypothesis or even convince him of a logical link.

If he can post something which he can tell me will prove that hypothesis, then I'll be reading these sometimes massive documents in my free time :)
 
StevenCalder said:
Well none of this actually confirms the alien hypothesis does it.

(...)

Science hasn't stopped learning, questions unanswerable now, maybe be explainable by natural phenomena tomorrow. Its still an argument from ignorance I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

No-one said it confirmed the "alien hypothesis" (I presume you actually mean the ET hypothesis). All I am saying is that it confirms that SOMETHING (we do not know what) is going on that lies outside our current knowledge of reality.

But your argument is exactly "the argument from ignorance". You logic is exactly: We don't know what is going on but tomorrow it will be explained as natural phenomena. That (I AM afraid) IS the argument from ignorance (in which it is claimed that a premise is true - that all UFOs will be explicable as natural phenomena - only because it has not been proven false - and THAT is a fallacy).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom