It isn't amazing that Hynek had no comment about the Kecksburg case? Why, if it was something truly extraordinary (like the Zamora case), didn't he mention it in any of his writings or discussions about UFOs? Probably because, as an astronomer, he knew something about meteors.

The idea that some of these sightings and especially Kecksburg as a touchdown of the Lunar Excursion Module seems to be a real stretch. Actual development did not begin in earnest until the early sixties and was on a very fast track to meet a 1968 in space flight test of LM-1. From what I know about engineering and development of prototypes, six years from contract to first flight is a very fast track. I don't understand how any test could have been ready in the mid-sixties that may be mistaken for UFO's by civilian bystanders.

-V

The LM's engine did not have nearly enough power to make a controlled descent in Earth's gravity. It would have fallen like a, well, meteor.

The LLTV used a powerful jet engine to counteract the higher gravity, allowing the pilots to train in a vehicle that approximated the characteristics of a LM lunar descent. However, none of those vehicles was ever used in New York, to the best of my knowledge.

Frankly, I think the LM idea is even less likely than an alien spaceship. At least the latter has unknown characteristics that (in our imaginations) could account for its reported behavior. The LM has known characteristics that make that behavior impossible.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Dropped in to offer my opinion of the UFO issue. While you would have to be totally uninformed to have never heard of the issue, I think my opinion is fairly fresh because.

A. I have never read a book on UFO's or seen one myself.
B. Never considered the subject in more than a casual way until recently.
C. Never joined or read a forum on the subject until recently.

Concession made that opinion is colored by my personal bias, as are all opinions.

A. There are a lot of hoaxes, misconceptions, and exaggerations.
B. There is a long history from the first cave scratchings to present.

On forums I have joined more than one and found this.

A. The most liberal accept everything at face value without investigation and are mostly fantasy.
B. Some are more serious and attempt to toss out the garbage but engage in endless debate accomplishing little due to no serious investigation.
C. The most conservative are of little use in discovery because, without benefit of investigation, they class everything as misconception or hoax and offer rigorous argument seeking that end.

As to evidence there is little. The strongest are pilot and crew sightings supported by radar returns.

There are a few accounts of hazards to navigation but are minimal. Some pilots have reported approaches close enough to light up their cockpits or require evasive actions. Evasive actions as a requirement are debatable because the UFO's are observed to be far more maneuverable than aircraft.

There is one recording from a flight control tower in Australia that is quite controversial on this. According to the transcripts a small aircraft with only a very alarmed pilot aboard reported several passes of a large craft. Then the open mike returned sounds suggestive of structural failure followed by silence. Search and rescue found nothing and the aircraft and pilot are still missing and presumed lost. While I read the transcript I have not done an exhaustive search for validity, but it was supported by news reports that I did find.

Some of the most notable are later identified. as in one from Pennsylvania that was most likely a failed Russian Venus probe falling to earth. Reason for classified is obvious.

One notable fact is that, even though radar returns and visual sightings have suggested velocities several times mach1, there are no reports of sonic booms. This suggest either misconception, unknown flight dynamics, or no one happened to be in the position to hear it.

Release of reports, such as this one from the UK, have value for collecting information as a pre screening. Most are Hogwash. Further evaluation is in order because they are mostly just a file cabinet with only cursory investigation. While witness info is withheld, there is usually an initial impression of credibility recorded and a few some seem sound.

One notable exception to investigation is MUFON. They make a serious attempt to gather factual information and to toss out the garbage. They take a serious science approach and are not preemptively dismissive. They are the only organization I am aware of that has field investigators and scientist on their team.

http://www.mufon.com/


Most notable is their opinion to date.

What MUFON knows to be true...After 36 years of research
1
UFOs ARE REAL – “We are NOT alone”

2
Our Universe is TEEMING with LIFE – “The scientific data shows that our planet is being visited by other intelligences on a regular basis”

3
UFOs (Unconventional Flying Objects) deserve scientific study – “UFOs display technology that if understood, and used wisely, could benefit our planet and greatly advance all mankind.”
*
John Schuessler
MUFON International Director Emeritus


Point number three in their conclusions is notable of reasons for governments to classify any physical evidence that may have been recovered. Benefit to defense of advanced technology.

Let me save you the trouble of engaging me in debate. This is an ultra conservative class C site (see above) and every statement made will be rigorously destroyed. It will be noted that radar returns are notoriously unreliable. Without argument I concede any point you wish to make and you may attack my character at will. No defense offered. Just felt obligated to post my personal conclusions having subjected you all to my arguments for many hours.

Regards and I thank you all for your time and consideration.

Sounds great until you realize that MUFON endorsed the Gulf Breeze case as authentic proof. Meanwhile other UFO groups stated it was a hoax and even members of MUFON agreed it was a hoax. Some had to resign their positions over the fiasco.

Now the talking points:

1) UFOs are real

Real what? No evidence to date has suggested that they are proof that "we are not alone". Lots of words and no evidence/proof to back it up.

2) No duh. We haven't found life but the odds are in favor that somewhere in the univers there is another planet with life. There is no scientific evidence to prove that this live is visiting earth. Notice he claims the data supports it but does not provide one iota of proof or "scientific data". It is a false argument and a lie. So much for real science being done by MUFON.

3) UFOs deserve scientific study? What has MUFON done to further the scientific study of UFOs? Nothing. They are stamp collecting UFO reports but doing nothing to further their understanding of it. What they really want is money in order to further their own little agenda. Science has long since concluded you can not study the phenomena this way and, despite the pleas of UFOlogists, scientists as late as 1997 stated they saw nothing in the UFO reports that indicate something unknown to science. Science will not study UFOs simply because it is not worthwhile despite the claims of MUFON. What has 60 years of studying UFOs given science? You might as well be studying bigfoot, elvis, or fairies. You get the same results. Well, Elvis was alive at one point so we know more about Elvis than UFOs.

If you want to believe that MUFON is doing something, go right ahead. But I have read a lot about them other than their webpage and undestand the little power structure/UFO kingdoms established in that community. They really do not do investigations properly and their "science" is often lacking. If you feel their work is worthwhile, maybe you should send them a contribution so they can spend your money "wisely" in the pursuit of scientific research on the matter.


Yep. We have all this technology but still use fossil fuels and rockets to explore space. It is amazing that we have not bothered to use any captured UFO technology to our benefit. Maybe it is because none has been recovered yet (and I doubt any will be recovered).

Why would you character be attacked? have you any examples of this happening on BAUT and not being jumped on by Mods? Have you read the site rules?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Nick Pope live on C to C this eve. Not a big fan of C to C. My list of who I will listen to over the last two years has dwindled to just a few. This is on topic though so I wanted to let those that may have an interest to know--j

Nick Pope live on C to C this eve. Not a big fan of C to C. My list of who I will listen to over the last two years has dwindled to just a few. This is on topic though so I wanted to let those that may have an interest to know--j

Just Googled him. Thanks for the tip. Thats how new I am to this subject, didn't know who N Pope was.

Astro-Photographer had some issues with him. It may be that he has turned his position into a "money-maker". I am not sure. Maybe we can get that gent to comment--your welcome--j

I just know that Pope appears to be an opportunist. Examples:

1) Rendlesham - see Ian Ridpaths comments about the radiation readings that Pope has suggested were too high for background (but in 1994, when he was at the MOD, figured they were not so high)


http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4a.htm

2) The Cosford incident, which Pope apparently feels is almost as good as Rendlesham. Cosford turned out to be observations of a rocket booster reentry. Scroll down to the Cosford incident in David Clarke's blog. Pope's findings conflict with others who determined what the source of the UFO was.

http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/news1.htm

Nick Pope has made a name for himself because he happened to work at the MOD UFO desk at one point. If one looks at the Rendlesham document it seems like the story Pope tells now differs from what he was saying in 1994.

The more info the better--thank you sir--j

In reality, the view of a believer holds no more or less creedence than that of a sceptic. So why are you all sqabbling? Science can't answer what some people have experienced, so in the absence of proper scientific explination the scientists should be the ones hiding under their comfort blankets and hope its not true, because they might just get a shock one day, when they find a little green man at the end of the bed.

You seem to be missing the point. Scientists and skeptics want to see the little green man at the end of the bed. Unfortunately, they are not going to take the word of a few people that the green man is there. The scientists and skeptics want more than the story, "I saw a green man at the end of my bed". To accept that without question is the belief you talk about. Meanwhile, Skeptics/scientists want the little green man, a bit of DNA from the little green man, or an artifact from the little green man that can not be explained as something from this earth. So far, in 60 years of "research", nobody has been able to produce any of these things. As a result, scientists and skeptics respond that there is no evidence to suggest that alien spaceships are visiting earth. If you want to accept these stories as "proof", feel free to do so. However, you/UFOlogy are not going to convince anybody with these stories. It is not good enough.

It is a bit of a stand off. The skeptics and scientists beleive nothing that cannot be proven scientifically. So it matters not that some have seen the Little Green Man. There is really no proof beyond the experience of seeing the Little Green Man and that is far from being provable by scientific standards. A bit frustrating for the witness. I have my own reasons to beleive that there will be some pretty red faces in the skeptic camp in the future, but most will accept the reality and move on. Sometimes what is seen is what it appears to be. Just my opinion, and I have been wrong in the past . . .

That's an extremely important point that often gets missed by, as tomsolomon calls them, "believers." I very much would like to see good evidence for "little green men," and I've known quite a few people that share that point of view. In my younger years, I took a lot of stories (including some of the "ancient astronaut") claims at face value, but the more I looked into them, the less real support I could find for them. Sometimes the stories were about events that were wide open to misidentification, and sometimes there were people that were just making things up. I grew more than a little disillusioned with the amount of nonsense floating around.

Exactly. If you want to convince me, it's going to take solid, independently testable evidence. And I'd be quite happy if someone managed that.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I agree, I am not a scientist and the evidence so far isn't good enough for me either. The volume and persistance say something is going on, exactly what is the question. But if you don't look, it will never be found. So I look the only way I can.

The answer, if ever found, might turn out to be something totally unexpected having nothing to do with aliens.

Never seen a UFO but I had a strange paranormal experiance once that saved mine and anothers life, or at least prevented a major accident. No explenation, no understanding, but it did happen.

That there is more to reality than we percieve, absolutly. If not then we wouldn't need radar, infrared, telescopes, all manor of tools to see a little more. Each new tool is a surprise in revelation that demonstrates how much more there is to know. Only supreme arragance would assume there is no phenomena worthy of examination.

Many things can be supported by objective evidence. If they can't be supported by objective evidence, they are in the realm of belief, not science.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser