Appearance of UFO's over time.

reply to post by murphyhurtme



Yes, its rather easy (and I think a little irresponsible) to just flippantly dismiss UFO testimony as lies - especially when there exists corroborating evidence to back up some of the incidents.

Of course its a rather convenient way of not addressing the subject and I'm sure many people would prefer to believe it but, in the spirit of developing a balanced, informed opinion, I realy suggest taking the time out to actualy look at some of the reported testimony (and shapes) featured below - it may take a few days as the USO thread is a very large one but hopefully, after objectively examining all the reports, you may not be so quick to jump to the conclusion that all these people are charlatans.




Testimony from Naval Officers, Ship's Captains, crewmen, submariners, coastguards etc..

"At about 02:00,I saw the first of many strange lights in the sky. The vast majority were in formation, usually quarter line, and all appeared on the port side.Many were in groups of three, some in groups of five or six. They appeared and disappeared instantly at the same speed a computer screen operates.
Suddenly one of these objects appeared at close range on our port bow at a low elevation. It was disc-shaped and consisted of a very bright light with black windows running around the whole side which was visible to us. It maintained perfect station on us for at least fifteen minutes. I scanned the object with binoculars attempting to see into the windows but saw nothing. I counted the windows and recall there were about two dozen. They were very large and close together and completely black.
Although the body of the object glowed very brightly, it did not prevent me from looking directly at it. The object appeared more oval in shape than round. And then suddenly it was gone. There was no sound made at any time".

George R. MacFarlane, Commander Royal Canadian Navy
Canadian Destroyer H.M.C.S. Iroquois ,May 1952.

USO Research

Testimony from Police Officers:

"I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up...to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us.... As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car...and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light...I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.
He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us.The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum...like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes....
.... it went PSSSSSHHEW, straight up; and I mean when it went up, friend, it didn't play no games; it went straight up."

Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur Portage County,Ohio,April 17, 1966
Also witnessed by Deputy Wilbur Neff.

PRUFOS -´Police report UFO Sightings´Organisation

Testimony from Military/civilian pilots:

"Of these UFO reports,the radar/visual reports are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located,then a jet interceptor is scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the lights and gets a radar lock only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him,there is no simple answer."

Edward J Ruppelt USAF Capt 1956

Eighty Years of pilot sightings

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by Tearman


Tearman, thanks for the reply but I don't think your comments apply to many of the truly interesting UFO cases.

In some of the incidents below unknown objects are tracked on (sometimes multiple) radar screens or exhibit electromagnetic effects on actual aircraft - in others, they leave trace evidence on the ground or are witnessed by many (separately located) people who all describe the same thing.

Of course story embellishment does occur but I think if you familiarize yourself with some of the case histories below then you may find its a pretty weak excuse for not treating them seriously.

The Tehran Incident

The RB-47 Incident

Thre Minot AFB B52 Incidnet (1968)

The Monmouth radar Incident (1951)

Thre Fukuoka UFO incident (1948)

The Lakenheath Incident (1956)

The Coyne Incident

The Redmond Oregon Incident

The Colares Incident

The Portage County Incident

The Alaska Flight 1628 Incident

The Exeter Puzzle Incident

The Washington Merry go round

The Chiles-Whitted Incident

The Gosford Incident

The Westhall UFO Incident

The Bariloche UFO Incident

The B-29 UFO Encounter (1952)

The Ellsworth AFB Incident (1953)

The Bethune case (1951)

The West Lothian Incident (1979)

The Texas Levelland UFO Incident(s) (1957)

The Edwards Air Force Base UFO Incident (1965)

The Kaikoura UFO Incident (1978)

The Guernsey Pilot UFO Incident (2007)

The Indian Point Nuclear Facility UFO Incident.

The Stephenville Radar UFO Incident.

The Nha Trang UFO Incident (1965)

The Little Rissington UFO Incident (1952)

The RAF Boulmer UFO Incident (1977)

The Davis-Monthan AFB UFO Incident (1952)

The Pitlochry UFO Incident (1990)

Link

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by LightFantastic
The only conclusion I can come up with is that many sighting are dreams or outright lies.

LightFantastic, I'm sure some folks are lying (or mistaken) when it comes to UFO testimony but quite a number of these incidents also involve ground trace evidence ,electromagnetic interference evidence, radar evidence etc.. which tends to corroborate their story.

Heres some very interesting UFO testimony from a lady in Staffordshire in 1954 - call me gullible but I don't think she's lying.

You don't have to convince me Karl. There is also a lot of good evidence out there, much of which you have already collated in your threads.

Thanks for the good work, when can we expect another thread?

Cheers



[edit on 6/3/2010 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by LightFantastic


Hey bud, thanks for the reply - yes I could of course be very wrong but it seems to me there's quite a lot of evidence in the public domain which suggests the UFO subject should be treated very seriously indeed.

As for the threads -thinking of doing one about the UFO wave of 1952 as it looks like it was one of the most important years of the lot.

The summer 1952 UFO sighting wave was one of the largest of all time, and arguably the most significant of all time in terms of the credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained. Electromagnetic (EM) effects and physical trace evidence were more prominent in other waves, but 1952 (and 1953) featured recurring radar detection of UFOs, often from both ground and airborne radar, visual sightings by jet interceptor pilots sent up to pursue the mysterious objects, and cat-and-mouse chases in which the UFOs seemed to toy with the interceptors. Further, Air Force investigators who plotted the sightings noticed that they were concentrated around strategic military bases, and this clearly posed a threat to national security since their origin was unknown.

The 1952 Sighting Wave - Radar/Visual Sightings Establish UFOs As A Serious Mystery

Cheers.

UFO History & Description of shapes_1,500BC-Present

just thought that some descriptions REALLY seem unchanged from what we experinced today..

Case in point for your op:

In the great American Airship wave 1896/1897 people saw UFO's that basically looked liked the proposed designs for flying machines of the day. The consensus was remarkable considering that most of the witnesses were most likely not influenced by the same sources of information.

It is indeed intruiging how these ideas come to be, and how our minds adapt to them. Personally, I prefer a kind of Jungian explanation for UFO's, but the one thing that speaks against their being archetypes is exactly what you point out in your OP.

The consensus and the way it has changed over the years is uncanny. A whole generations sees cigars/mechanical airships and then after the war the sightings change to ET's/Hyperphysics without there being a clear and distinct change in the popular discourse of UFO's. Although an argument can be made that in the 20's, 30's and 40's there was a distinct turn to the ET/UFO as ET narrative, it is hard to explaing how this affected individual sightings.

The thing you allude to in your OP is the one thing that always brings me back to the fall-back position that basically we make things up - like UFO's- but not in a random fashion, we are actually pretty much determined as to the structure our lies or delusions will take (perhaps because they are formed in the unconscious??).

Then again. Some UFO's are not like others. I can't make up my mind.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
It is indeed intruiging how these ideas come to be, and how our minds adapt to them. Personally, I prefer a kind of Jungian explanation for UFO's, but the one thing that speaks against their being archetypes is exactly what you point out in your OP.

Carl Jung seemed to be in two minds about the UFO subject and made these comments in 1954 and 1967.

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, Pioneer of psychiatry, stated in 1954:

"A purely psychological explanation is ruled out... the discs show signs of intelligent guidance, by quasi-human pilots... the authorities in possession of important information should not hesitate to enlighten the public as soon and as completely as possible."
("Dr. Carl Jung on Unidentified Flying Objects," Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1955.)




"It remains an established fact, supported by numerous observations, that UFOs have not only been seen visually but have also been picked up on the radar screen and have left traces on the photographic plate."
("A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers," Time, August 4, 1967.)

The Rockefeller Briefing Document

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


I've heard that Jung took an empirical turn in regard to UFO's in his later life, although I have never read the source you provided me with. Thank you.

Of course, what I meant with "jungian approach" was the first interpretation you pointed out.

I can't say that radar returns on UFO's do totally rule out the archetypal explanation, but I pointed out other weaknesses with this kind of thinking above.
Basically, if it's an archetype, it shouldn't change in sync with change in popular culture.