I was just reading all the bluebook reports from the time period. Apparently, the videos don't quite capture much of what was in those documents. Just some tidbits:

1) The conclusion of Bluebook was astronomical (and one weather balloon) and atmospheric conditions for radar. The report summary reads:

Tower operator first noticed flashing lights. Objects appeared to have elevation of between 20 and 45 degrees and azimuth of 050 to 075 (Astrophotographer note: during the tape all sorts of azimuths are report including 135-145 degrees). Of the 7 objects reported visually, 4 persisted longer. The objects seemed to be in formation and they varied in their flight paths. Their main change was in altitude. They appeared to hover and then rise in a near vertical direction. These objects looked like all the other stars and after a while they just seemed to blend in with the other stars. The other 3 objects just gradually faded from view after a short time. Radar contacts came from relatively dispersed areas. All the contacts obtained were difficult to hold because of slow speeds involved. The height finidng radar similarly had little luck in giving valid changes in alt. There was no overall discernable pattern to the flight paths of the objects when considered as a whole.

2) the time/date reads 7 October 1965 at 0833Z on the master report but the another page says 0133Z. The events appear to have transpired over several hours.

3) The comments of the reporting officer are important:

It was approximately 1000Z (0300 PDT) when I arrived at Edwards base operations. The activity level had subsided by that time but the tower operator still claimed to hold flashing lights on two of the four objects under observation. I was able to observe the objects but I cannot positively say that I saw flashing lights. The objects looked like ordinary stars. One of the objects pointed out was very brilliant but not as brilliant as to preclude it being a star. At times a couple of the objects did seem to flicker but I certainly saw no distince intermittent flashing. I should mention here that what I observed was at the tail end of the activity and according to the observers was not representative of what they had seen earlier.

4) Some important data from the tape. At one point the amount of motion reported is 1/2 degree in 6 minutes. That is roughly 5 degrees an hour (normal motion for equatorial stars is 15 degrees per hour). Considering the ability for error, it seems the motion of the UFOs was very similar to the motion of the stars.

5) Late in the tape there is a report of one object passing over the runway. This turned out to be a weather balloon which had been released from Edwards weather station at 1200Z.

6) some important tape statements by the tower operator (the key witness to this event in the videos)

"Biggest object has moved...Elevation of brightest star is 45 deg...has had good visual contact for over 2 hours...Most prominent object has azimuth of 135 deg at 15-20 miles - it is very high and getting dimmer....Hold 3 objects in a row at 145 deg
One at 135 deg azimuth is much brighter and higher than the others. Large bright one is left and above the other three" (note: this could be Orion's belt and the star Betelgeuse or Jupiter, which was above Betelgeuse at the time in the foot of Gemini).

7) on the tape there are comments by Capt clark, (det.1, alert pilot at Edwards) "look like stars to me"

8) During intercept the following occurs

Tower operator: Interceptor has gone past and is too low
Radar: Aircraft if climbing to 40000 ft. Possible contact on search radar at 075.
Tower operator: Have one at 075 and high.
Radar: Aircraft is passing over the tower and is still low at 40,000 ft.Aircraft reports "Looks like one bright shiny star."

The whole thing sounds a lot like scintillating stars triggering the report. The effort of the tower operator to guide the interceptor towards the UFOs sounds a lot like the efforts of policemen to guide an aircraft towards planet Venus in case 37 of the Condon study. There are some problems with getting the stars and positions reported right. However, the testimony of the tape seems to indicate stars and maybe Jupiter as the cause of some of the events. There also may have been confusion wth Orion's belt at one point.

You can read the documents at http://www.www.nicap.org/docs/edwards_docs2.pdf. They are far superior to some biased UFO video. At least one can look at the raw information and transcripts.

You go in thinking you got some, easy to work with, like-minded individuals...

Yes -- if you thought you would get mindless validation, you're in the wrong place. Try Godlike Productions. I don't mean any of that unkindly; I'm just agreeing that you're in the wrong place.

Negative nabobs of negativity...

Skepticism isn't negativity. It's simply a desire not to live in a fantasy world.

...useless opinions on the credibility of witnesses and all of it unsubstantial to the story.

Why is the credibility of witnesses to a controversially interpreted event immaterial?

No one has to come up with an answer.

To what? The links to someone else's conclusions you casually posted and then agreed to?

I said it was a UFO, which denotes it being an unknown object.

Then what part of this sentence did I misinterpret: "I would say it's merely an non-human created object/craft. Whatever that is."[/i]

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There was no real need for the sentence above, but you wrote it.

FALSE. Your just wrong. The head flight controller said there was no written script to follow. He called it a "fly by the seat of your pants sorta deal". Furthermore, because the object did not fire on us it confused the situation because I believe the only aircraft they had available were Nuclear armed.

Hogwash. Not everything is classified for 30 years as a matter of routine.
This was obviously classified because it illustrated a UFO penetrating our defenses and we could do nothing to stop it. The USAF lied in the official (Top Secret) report and called the objects weather balloons, EVEN THOUGH IN THE AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS THE WEATHER MAN IS HEARD ON THE UNOQUIVICALLY SAYING THESE ARE NOT WEATER BALLOONS AND THAT NONE HAD BEEN RELEASED. FURTHERMORE THE BALLOONS USED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIT. They just were not balloons.

That's ironic, because you have not offered one opinion on what you think it was. You know why? Because you have no idea. You reject only the alien-only vehicle option, EVEN THOUGH I never once suggested it was alien. Nice try, but you lose here as well. Massive failure.

IF SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD, I would say it's merely an non-human created object/craft. Whatever that is.

[/quote]

I said, IF SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. Not saying that's what the object is. You seriously do not know how to discuss something, without taking a position before you go into it, do you? This is amazing. Here we have an amazing "UFO" case and the only thing you care about is getting me to say it's "alien" so you can win some pathetic debating points. Hey, let me clear what I think this is. A FREAKING UFO.

You've been on here too long. And after just a couple of days, so have I!

Hmmm....you were the one who wanted to present some video clips as your references. I was curious why you chose not to present the bluebook documents. Apparently, they were not as spectacular as the video presentation. Interviewing people 30-40 years later tends to blur the facts with false recollections. This is common with story telling and I think the original reports are more accurate.

Because you bring no evidence to backup this so called credibility issue, ignore the credibility of the USAF. It's a total hack job.

And I said, Non-Human created object if SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. Nice try though.

Look, I know what kind of person you are. You want to pin me down as saying this was certainly an alien object so you can get your rocks off with it. But since I'm not saying that - I'm just genuinely interested in the UFO aspect you are playing this game.

If you tell me what you think it is, I will continue this discussion, otherwise it's done.

Well if you had watched the YouTube clips you would know what has changed since then. The audio recordings which have been released which reveal that the result of the investigation (balloons) was a lie.

Not everything is classified for 30 years as a matter of routine.

Yes it is. 25 years is a standard minimum classification interval, and as a matter of practice nothing is declassified until someone asks for it to be. That can be a very long time. I have experience with classified material. Do you?

This was obviously classified because it illustrated a UFO penetrating our defenses and we could do nothing to stop it.

Begging the question again. When I asked you straight up if you knew why it was classified, you said you didn't know. Now all of a sudden you do. Which is it?

That's ironic, because you have not offered one opinion on what you think it was.

What obligates me to? Just because you want to speculate that it's a "non-human" vehicle doesn't mean everyone else has to speculate, nor that they can't find problems with your speculation.

EVEN THOUGH I never once suggested it was alien.

Describe the difference between an "alien craft" and a "non-human constructed object."

You seriously do not know how to discuss something, without taking a position before you go into do you?

Actually I'm pretty good at cutting through hogwash.

Here we have an amazing "UFO" case and the only thing you care about is getting me to say it's "alien" so you can win some pathetic debating points.

The only thing I'm trying to get you to do is to stop equivocating.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Of course there was no script but it documented how a response would occur. From what I read, the plane's nuclear-tipped missles were removed prior to the intercept. Apparently, the officers felt it was an unnecessary risk to send a nuclear-tipped missle interceptor up to investigate. Makes you wonder on how serious they thought the "threat" was. Apparently, they did not think it was too serious.

Actually, it is routine. Events become classified and get declassified in steps. The actual bluebook records were declassified after bluebook closed down so the records you speak of were not even classified for 30 years but less than 10! UFO groups did not bother to get the tapes until 1998 when they found out they existed.

The actual report said astronomical and a weather balloon (again you have problems with the real facts behind the case). There WAS a balloon launch at 1200Z by the Edwards AFB weather office. Was it lit? I can not say for sure but it was common practice to light weather balloons when launched at night if radar was not being used. Weather balloons are tracked by visual observation of those who launched it or by radar. Considering the fact the radar was busy tracking UFOs that morning, the weathermen probably decided to track it visually, which would require a lit balloon.

Hmmm.....according to the video. Again, you miss the true facts. Part of the explanation was a balloon. The rest had to do with astronomical objects. I guess looking at the facts is something that UFO videos choose not to do. I suggest you read the ACTUAL bluebook report and not what these videos tell you happened.

Exactly how can you prove these explanations were "a lie"? What facts can you present that shows it was "a lie"?

What difference does it make? None. More of your hogwash.
I said it was a UFO - Nice try.

I said it was a UFO - failed again.
Okay, well you are familiar with it, that's for sure. You like to get mired in it.

[/quote]

It's not working either. I say it's a UFO. What say you? (I know you won't answer)

Look, I know what kind of person you are. You want to pin me down as saying this was certainly an alien object so you can get your rocks off with it.

How rude.

You have not stopped alluding to an alien vehicle hypothesis since you first brought it up, and have spoken of no other possible explanation. Either embrace your belief or deny it. But quit trying to be passive-aggressive about it.

If you tell me what you think it is, I will continue this discussion, otherwise it's done.

LOL, so you're not obligated to take a stand, but we are! That's rich.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dude, you gotta watch the videos. They do what you guys are trying to do - debunk. However, and you won't believe this. They DEBUNK THE ORIGINAL USAF Story! They have the balls to not take their story at face value!

You also said it was a non-human constructed object. Obviously, you don't even understand what you have written.

No, I said it's merely a UFO. Nice try though.
So we both think it's a UFO then. Neither one of us is taking a stand. So we agree.

Dude???? Interesting plea for me to waste a lot of my time. I have seen the videos and am not impressed. So far you have gotten a lot of facts wrong based on the videos. Can you see a problem here? They don't have anything. They have inflated 30-40 year old stories to demonstrate their point of view is the correct one. You seemed to be perfectly willing to accept this without question. I am telling you to do a bit more research and not accept what they show at face value.

No, I said if someone put a gun to my head that was the only other thing I could think of, outside of just "unknown". But it would be impossible to say for certain. I would never swear to it..

Since you can not really identify what it was, then it could be exactly what Bluebook concluded, astronomical objects and a weather balloon.