UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:11:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 01:58:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs
>Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:58:43 -0500
>From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs
>> From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
>> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs
>
>> JC: Sorry for this interjection again, but: A problem existing in
>> Ufology today is that skeptics, because they have not researched deep
>> enough, often quote statistics that skew historical fact. Example, the
>> following quote:
>
JC: Hi John, again regarding your statement:
>> >........ There are tens and tens of
>> >thousands of UFO sightings reported over the last 50 or so years and
>> >that is our raw uninvestigated data population. That is also the
>> >most useless number in all of ufology. Of the uninvestigated total
>> >we know that easily from 80% (being very generous) to 95% are IFOs
>> >(and some, a small percentage) are hoaxes. We know statistically
>> >that 80% to 95% will be retired as IFOs.......
>
>> REBUTTAL:
>
>> JC: In the past, most of the statistics used to retire UFOs as IFOs
>> were provided by the Air Force.
>
>We also have APRO and NICAP data from the same time period. We also
>have other data sources since then.
JC: Yes, that is correct. However, I don't think most of the skeptics
were looking very closely at that material and taking it seriously for
quite some time. I believe many skeptics are not tuned into it even today,
but some are beginning to realize it is valid data to incorporate into
their assessment.
>If you prefer 70% to 95%, instead of my saying "80% to 95%," that's fine
>with me, I don't think the difference is significant with respect to the
>three points I was trying to make:
JC: John, 10% is 10%. To those people who have looked at a UFO fairly
closely for 3 minutes or more back in the 1960's or '70's (or whenever),
found what they saw to be virtually completely silent, yet still up in the
air and performing maneuvers very un-airplane, un-helicopter, un-kite like,
un-balloon like, (as one woman from New Hampshire told me personally; "when
it left it took off like a humming bird"), the size of a plane or bigger,
unlike anything they have seen before or since ... and to those of them who
made an attempt to go to the library, study every flying machine they could
over the years and still not having found or seen anything like what they
saw back then, and made a continual effort all that time to study the
history of UFOs to explain what they saw to themselves and, finding for
themselves that it looks as though something is most probably going on that
is not simply misidentified astronomical items, media-hype, hoaxes, etc.
..... it makes a _big_ difference.
You have also said:
>Most of the folks who
>have been doing for decades prefer 90% to 95% which would give us a nice
>and easily to handle dataset.
JC: Those were the skeptics to whom I was referring in my opening paragraph.
>1) _Most_ UFO sightings turn out to be readily explainable.....
JC: It would make me feel a lot better if this said: "_A large number_
of UFO sightings turn out to be readily explainable....."
>
>2) The raw sighting count or the raw sighting report count is an utterly
>useless and meaningless number.
JC: John, it can't be totally "useless and meaningless" or you would not
have a base number from which to derive your core number.
>3) After extensive research and investigation, _some_ (small)
>percentage, with a high point around 15% to 30% <grin> to a low of
>around 5%, of UFO sightings remain beyond current explanation. _Some_
>older UFO sightings (Catalina film and at least one other) did yeild a
>common Earthly explanation upon the use of modern technology, and its
>likely a _few_ more will follow in time.
JC: Hmmn. What did they say the Catalina sighting was? Who did the
analysis? Who confirmed this analysis? Where is this material for us to
see? Is this agreed upon by most UFO researchers, at least on this mail
list? We should really save this for another discussion so we don't get off
track here for a moment.
Howeover, _this_ remaining
>core dataset should be the primary focus of ufology.
JC: Agreed.
>There's at least one good (or sensible to some <grin>) reason why the
>really good UFO stuff didn't go to Bluebook. Bluebook was a PIO
>quasi-investigative operation and if they had to explain a particular
>sighting as being an advanced USAF R&D craft I rather think the folks at
>the DoD would get upset...
>
>I suspect that if the DoD would be forthcoming with declassification
>and disclosure we could whittle our core dataset down to around 5%.
JC: Well, the Bollender Memo apparently did confirm part of what you are
saying. But as for your last sentence, this is your opinion to which you
are certainly entitled. However, it is not shared by this researcher. I
believe it is quite possible the percentage could be a lot higher than
this. Why do I think this? Again, in your most honest opinion, upon close
inspection does the following case from 1965, quoted by Dr. Hynek from Blue
Book files, sound like it was "an advanced USAF R&D craft?" Look at the
speed and hoverability.
>>[Extract from a
>>classified document of reported sighting of 5 May, 1965, contents
>>unclassified, classification refers to name, and location and
>>mission of vessel.] " . . . leading signal man reported what he
>>believed to be an aircraft. . . . When viewed through binoculars,
>>three objects were sighted in close proximity to each other; one
>>object was first magnitude, the other two were second magnitude.
>>Objects were traveling at extremely high speeds, moving toward
>>ship at undetermined altitude. At . . . . four moving targets
>>were detected on the . . . . air search radar at ranges up to
>>twenty two miles and held up to six minutes. When over the ship
>>the objects spread to circular formation directly overhead and
>>remained there for approximately three minutes. This maneuver was
>>observed both visually and by radar. The bright object which
>>hovered off the starboard quarter made the larger presentation on
>>the radar scope. The objects made several course changes during
>>the sighting, confirmed visually and by radar, and were *tracked
>>at speeds in excess of 3000 (three thousand) knots. * (J.C.
>>Asterisks are mine.) Challenges were made by IFF but not
>>answered. * After the three minute hovering maneuver, * the objects
>>moved in a southeasterly direction at an extremely high rate of
>>speed. Above evolution observed by CO, all bridge personnel and
>>numerous hands topside."
JC: Add to this the three cases I cited in Oberg/Cooper.7abc from the
late 1950's. Or the "NATO and police-verified" Belgium sightings of
1989/90. *
Same question. Do these cases sound like "advanced USAF R&D craft?"
>But I think the difference between 30% or 15% or 5% is largely irrelevant.
JC: Irrelevant to who(m)? I guess you are entitled to your opinion. But,
let's see. Say we call the number of raw cases _15,000 per/yr_ (Difference
between your 10,000 and Jan's 20,000).
Core database number of unknowns would be: 30% = 4500 15% = 2250 and
5% = 750 cases respectively.
Instead of cases, if one of these was going to be your salary for this
statistical analysis, which one would you choose? :-)
Please remember that if you were to discover _1_ of these cases to be
proven to your satisfaction to be the "real thing," you might just might
have to start rethinking other cases you eliminated by "grand reduction,"
perhaps military cases first, since they have radar-visuals and they have
radar which is geared to the specific task. ** If "they" actually got
here, where are they staying? You might have to ask; "Did they just stop in
for a drive around the block, or with the effort and cost it probably took
to get here, did they have a purpose?" How do we presently study other
species? Are they studying us? How might they do this? etc.
** We wouldn't want to cloud the issue with possible doubt
as was claimed in a "radar-visual" Michigan case where
a well-known skeptic was convinced that the person with
weather radar must obviously have made a mistake since
the operator's radar wasn't geared specifically for that
purpose. (Even though the operator was well-skilled and
swore that what was on his scope were extremely solid
returns and he was able to show interested parties the
difference between ground reflections, temperature
inversions, etc.)
Unfortunately, the only trouble is, we may never be privy to those specific
military cases because they'll never release them. But, a large number of
indicators are literally screaming at us that they are there; from the CAA
tower operators Professor McDonald brought in to testify in the 11/4/57
Kirtland AFB case (Oberg/Cooper 7b & c) to the 1979-81 FOIA releases of
memos from nine different government agencies that discussed amongst other
things, UFO visits to SAC bases in 1975, in which the coordinated efforts
of 15 A.F. bases to apprehend the intruders failed.
Sincerely,
Jerry Cohen
E-mail: rjcohen@li.net
BELGIUM CASE:
* Belgium case shown below as it appeared in the July/Aug 1990 issue
of CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies) IUR (International UFO Reporter). The
case was reinacted on "Unsolved Mysteries" narrated by Robert Stack.
Recorded data taken by Belgian Air Force plane radar was included in the
reinaction along with videotaped statements from military & police
personnel. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Belgian Air
Force and national police would put their reputations on the line to say
something of this sort if there wasn't something substantial to it.
Something had to really shake them up enough for them to say it as a
combined group. The descriptions given by the police in the video were
amazing to say the least.
These people are trained observers to handle emergencies & wartime events.
It seems to make sense to me to trust a _large group_ of trained observers
before I will believe any individual skeptic who _thinks_ he has proven
otherwise.
>----start here----
"On the night of March 30th, one of the callers reporting a UFO was a
Captain of the national police at Pinson, and [Belgian Air Force]
Headquarters decided to make a serious effort to verify the reports. In
addition to the visual sightings, two RADAR installations also saw the UFO.
One RADAR is at Glons, southeast of Brussels, which is part of the NATO
defense group, and one at Semmerzake, west of the Capitol, which controls
the military and civilian traffic of the entire Belgian territory. The
range of the two RADARs is 300 kilometers, which is more than enough to
cover the area where the reports took place. . . . Headquarters determined
to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the
possibility of prosaic explanations for the RADAR images. Excellent
atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false
echoes due to temperature inversions.
". . . at 0005 hours the order was given to the F-16s to take off
and to find the intruder. The lead pilot concentrated on his RADAR screen,
which at night is his best organ of vision. The F-16 is equipped with very
sophisticated equipment, including chase RADAR, which is not fixed directly
ahead of the airplane, but makes a wide search in an arc of 90 degrees left
and right of the nose. . . .
"Suddenly the two fighters spotted the intruder on their RADAR
screens, appearing like a little bee dancing on the scope. Using their joy
sticks like a video game, the pilots ordered the onboard computers to
pursue the target. As soon as lock-on was achieved, the target appeared on
the screen as a diamond shape, telling the pilots that from that moment on,
the F-16s would remain tracking the object automatically . . . .
"[Before the RADAR had locked on for six seconds] the object had
speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 kph to 1,800 kph, while
descending from 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters . . . in one second! This
fantastic acceleration corresponds to 40 Gs. It would cause immediate
death to a human on board. The limit of what a pilot can take is about 8
Gs. The trajectory of the object was extremely disconcerting. It arrived
at 1,700 meters altitude, then it dove rapidly toward the ground at an
altitude under 200 meters, and in doing so escaped from the RADARs of the
fighters and the ground units at Glons and Semmerzake. This maneuver took
place over the suburbs of Brussels, which are so full of man-made lights
that the pilots lost sight of the object beneath them . . .
"Everything indicates that this object was intelligently directed
to escape from the pursuing planes. During the next hour the scenario
repeated twice. . .
"This fantastic game of hide and seek was observed from the ground
by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw
both the object and the F-16s. The encounter lasted 75 minutes, but nobody
heard the supersonic boom which should have been present when the object
flew through the sonic barrier. No physical damage was reported. Given
the low altitude and speed of the object, many windows should have been
broken."
This case has all the hallmarks of the classic USAF jet-scrambling
cases of the 1950s and 1960s, with one notable exception: the Belgian Air
Force is not covering up anything.
For a full translation of the Paris-Match article, write to:
Robert J. Durant, 106 Hessian Hill Drive, Pennington, NJ 08534.
>-----end here----
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com