Five of my favourite from the "best" UFO sightings/encounters

a reply to: Neill887

Good case, your video ends right before the best part




The debunker explanation by James McGaha is hilarious, I think I would have done him a favor and not included it in the final cut.
There is a 3rd video in the series but it doesnt add much.

Also an ATS thread

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: Neill887
The debunker explanation by James McGaha is hilarious, I think I would have done him a favor and not included it in the final cut.

Not so hilarious if you listen to the tape in it's entirety HERE

This is another example of why you cannot use UFO television shows for your facts. They left out portions of the 1:02:20 minute taped recording with the dispatcher and officers.

For example- In part 2 of the Sightings episode linked above, one officer climbs an old radar tower three stories to get a better look at the object(s). Then you hear and see the following dialog while they show three structured craft flying in formation:

"Oh my god, I hope that's a plane. Oh please be a plane, oh please."

Then that's it. What they don't mention is the rest of what he says on the tape about those lights:

"Oh that's a plane, thank god... I get nervous when they're coming at me... There's three planes. I'll tell you what, they're coming out of the air force base."

This exchange begins at 54:30 of the taped conversation I linked above. That renders that entire portion of the UFO incident BS.

The dispatcher gets a call from another officer and they talk back and forth about the "UFO." He says other officers witnessed the object also and it was above the tree line and hasn't moved. Later he calls back and says:

"I looked at this thing through a telescope, I think what we're looking at is a planet. It's moving... it's arching in a set pattern."

The same thing astronomer James McGaha said during his interview on this show. So all of these police officers were chasing and giving positions over various counties- of a planet. If you've ever seen Sirius at night, it's low on the horizon, very bright, and strobes white, blue, red and other colors. It's another good candidate for what they saw.

It puts a dent in police officers being great witnesses or "trained observers." When witnessing something they can't understand or relate to, they can become just as excited and subject to filling in the blanks for an explanation as anyone else.

One officer said he saw a low bright red light blinking when he went to investigate. Contrary to the account on the show, his car did not shut off and wasn't flooded from above with a bright white light. Nowhere in the live dialog is there any mention of either of these. Also, his partner, who climbed the radar tower, said during his TV interview that he didn't know what the lights were while on the tower. The live tape goes against this, he explained during the sighting they were three aircraft from the air base.

They try to fool you with journalistic style of reporting and many buy into it. But these are hyped shows with a $$$ motivation. Research all claims for yourself or you just end up spreading misinformation.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

There are certainly many UFO shows that fail to give the other side story on numerous sightings like Cosford case which I consider successfully debunked. Not disclosing the officer talking about planes at the end is real disappointing.

One officer said he saw a low bright red light blinking when he went to investigate. Contrary to the account on the show, his car did not shut off and wasn't flooded from above with a bright white light. Nowhere in the live dialog is there any mention of either of these.

I dont think this is insurmountable, but I completely agree, this should have been explained/discussed (maybe it was but cut from the show, who knows) . It is the actual officer in the video though, this isnt second hand. Perhaps he decided to make this part up, seems unlikely to me though.

Unlike Belgium, this is over US soil and it is tempting to think it is military moving a black budget craft from one base to another.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: Neill887

Good case, your video ends right before the best part

The debunker explanation by James McGaha is hilarious, I think I would have done him a favor and not included it in the final cut.
There is a 3rd video in the series but it doesnt add much.

Also an ATS thread

Yes he says it's scintillation, but McGaha is full of sh#ttelation.

that Zimbabwe landing is defenite proof. maybe one or two kids can make up a story but 62? youd be hard pressed to get 62 adults to tell the same story never mind kids, something happened that day.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
that Zimbabwe landing is defenite proof. maybe one or two kids can make up a story but 62? youd be hard pressed to get 62 adults to tell the same story never mind kids, something happened that day.

I have only seen a few of the 62 kids talk about it and of those few kids, some of them saw a Gardner with long hair and then the story changed to telepathic aliens with pointy eyes a few months later when Mack visited. So of those 62 kids, we only get to hear some of their stories and only get to see some of the drawings that were hand picked because they looked like aliens. None of it was actually documented in real way.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
that Zimbabwe landing is defenite proof. maybe one or two kids can make up a story but 62? youd be hard pressed to get 62 adults to tell the same story never mind kids, something happened that day.

I have only seen a few of the 62 kids talk about it and of those few kids, some of them saw a Gardner with long hair and then the story changed to telepathic aliens with pointy eyes a few months later when Mack visited. So of those 62 kids, we only get to hear some of their stories and only get to see some of the drawings that were hand picked because they looked like aliens. None of it was actually documented in real way.

It's unfortunate how many members of this board read a story online or see it on TV and buy it with zero research. The Zimbabwe incident is another example of this. They end up spreading misinformation, like 62 witnesses, onto others and it only snowballs.

The Trumbull UFO story above is filled with misinformation and took me less than 5 minutes to find the original recorded tape online and an hour to listen to it. It's so simple to research, it makes me question if it's laziness, the overriding desire to believe, or a belief that these shows would never distort the truth that prevents further investigation.

I became wrapped up in UFO/alien tales and strange phenomena stories as a kid watching episodes of In Search Of or Orson Welles narrated type of shows in the mid-late 70's. In comes the internet and that came crashing down after doing my own research.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

It's unfortunate how many members of this board read a story online or see it on TV and buy it with zero research. The Zimbabwe incident is another example of this. They end up spreading misinformation, like 62 witnesses, onto others and it only snowballs.

Yeah, I know we discussed the Zimbabwe case before but the problem with this case is that there is very little to go on. When I first heard of it, my first impression was of this amazingly unexplainable case with alien spaceships landing in front of a school and 64 kids looking right at the aliens from a few yards away. There is very little debunking of it for some reason but it falls apart quickly when you start looking at the facts that are available. In fact, there is very little to debunk.

The Trumbull UFO story above is filled with misinformation and took me less than 5 minutes to find the original recorded tape online and an hour to listen to it. It's so simple to research, it makes me question if it's laziness, the overriding desire to believe, or a belief that these shows would never distort the truth that prevents further investigation.

I think its the last part. I think its natural to believe whatever it is your watching or reading and particularly if the material is presented in such a way that it appears honest. I think its just human nature. We are bombarded with commercials that use the same methods...4 out of 5 doctors agree with me.

I became wrapped up in UFO/alien tales and strange phenomena stories as a kid watching episodes of In Search Of or Orson Welles narrated type of shows in the mid-late 70's. In comes the internet and that came crashing down after doing my own research.

I used to watch the same shows with my father who is 89 now and just discovered all the new "documentaries" on UFOs...its interesting to he's his thought process...and what he buys..."they can't all be lying" ....oy.

For reference if anyone is interested, the Cosford UFO sighting link provided in the opening post contains some dead links. Here are the official ministry of defense archive links to the materials referenced.

Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) Cosford Incident 1993

Pt 1 PDF

Part 2 PDF

However, as gortex pointed out (see the link provided in that post here: drdavidclarke.co.uk... ) there are mundane explanations which can account for that sighting, unfortunately.

Peace.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The Trumbull UFO story above is filled with misinformation and took me less than 5 minutes to find the original recorded tape online and an hour to listen to it

The interesting part of the Trumbull case , at least for me, is the office who claims it flew directly over his car and shut it down. I dont think it is shocking he chose not to immediately talk about it. The case imo would certainly be better if there were others in the area with the same experience like in the Leveland case.


Some other interesting cases

Lebanon UFO, 2000


Father Gill sighting in New Guinea, 1959

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

Several good threads on this case, hopefully we learn more about it at some point

link 1

link 2

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The Trumbull UFO story above is filled with misinformation and took me less than 5 minutes to find the original recorded tape online and an hour to listen to it

The interesting part of the Trumbull case , at least for me, is the office who claims it flew directly over his car and shut it down. I dont think it is shocking he chose not to immediately talk about it.

What he claims on the Sightings interview and what he says during the actual police dispatch recording do not jibe. His car shutting down simultaneously as a bright white beam of light from above shines on his car would have certainly been mentioned during the taped experience. I listened to the dispatch tape again and there's nothing about his car shutting off, nothing about a bright white light overhead, nothing about it hovering for 30 seconds above his car, nothing about the object flying away and his car starting back up. He discusses with the dispatcher on both the public and private channels.

Both officers seem to have jazzed up their encounter for the show. The question is why and what was their motivation. As I said before, that could be answered by $$$.

The case imo would certainly be better if there were others in the area with the same experience like in the Leveland case.

There were other witnesses, the claimed 12+ officers who saw this object. The "police officer" tag is used by UFO believers/supporters as greater evidence of this being an unidentified flying object. Ultimately it turns out to be explained as a planet by an officer watching the object through a telescope. At one point earlier in the tape, an officer says:
"All I see is a white star out there... Dan and I were talking and it was either Jupiter or Sirius."

This is not a strong case.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You're harder on the guy than me, he comes off pretty genuine to me. But either way, there is no report of the object taking off at a high rate of speed from its cruising speed like the Ravenna or Belgium case. Even in the Lebanon case, its hard not to dismiss the military option given when we had something like the Blackbird in operation.

IMO, the really good cases are pre-70s where the military option isnt such a good possibility. For a late case, I do like the Belgium sightings though, its hard to come with a reason why the US would use that country as a testing grounds for their triangle craft.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

That's a big question for me too. Why they would test them in Belgium has always niggled at me but I've concluded that it wasn't a test.
The question should really be; What were they DOING in Belgium. The craft acted with a purpose and weren't too worried about being seen.
Hovering around, performing manoeuvres etc then only disappearing when the fighters approached.
They were definitely up to something in that location but what???
If that could be ascertained it would help answer a few more questions for me.
Cheers.

Nice thread. I personally always liked the Father Gill case, mentioned above, because its so very low key and very hard to explain other than with the good Father making it all, or at least portions of it, up.

The belgian wave is also intriguing as well as one french case, the so called Trans en Provence case which is quite strange.

Cheers,

BT

a reply to: beetee

The officers at the Eupen sighting observed the craft for over an hour, at one point it stopped at a dam for over 30 minutes. They noticed 2 red beams coming down to the ground(perhaps search lights) and a drone type device(red ball) that would shoot out and then return to the ship. The dispatch officer and the last set of officers also observed the drone device.

Perhaps they were using the drone device to search for something that led two of the ships to the dam. Afraid there isnt much else to go on.

Start in at 2:30 to see the officer comments.